chuckd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) This American does recognize we have a serious problem. Unfortunately our politicians have been bought and paid for by the NRA as well as others. We also should repeal and replace our second amendment which I don't see happening in my lifetime. The amount of gun deaths in America is staggering and will continue.Americans don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they need to simply enforce it as it was written. Or, if you prefer, in the spirit it was written. The key sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Note: 'A well-regulated militia' It doesn't say homeowners or shop owners. One would assume that the cops were armed though eh? Remember the NRA presidents words?: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'" Idiot. Maybe there was a good guy with a gun nearby. From the article linked below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One unconfirmed report is that the two exchanged gunfire with a citizen who was carrying a concealed weapon, and that one of the shooters was injured. A woman was shot and killed just inside the front doors of the Wal-Mart. Her name has not yet been released. As Metro officers entered the front and back doors of the store they exchanged gunfire with the shooters, Gillespie said. The female shooter then shot her accomplice at least once before shooting herself in the head, a law enforcement official said. The wounded man then shot and killed himself. Their identities have not been released by police. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/shooters-metro-ambush-left-five-dead-spoke-white-supremacy-and-desire-kill-police ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited June 9, 2014 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suradit69 Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) In less than one week, we had the gunman on the Seattle Campus. We had the gunman at the Georgia courthouse. And now we have this heartbreaking cold-blooded mass shooting. When is the senseless gun violence going to stop? What is it going to take for Americans to recognize they have a serious problem and it needs to be treated? Unfortunately they will never treat it...and yet they will try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way... :-( And from time to time some NRA loon who has taken up residence in Thailand whines about not being able to buy all the guns he wants here. In a nation like America where everyone is obsessed with loss of face in school, at work, within the family ... and armed to the teeth, it's probably a miracle the annual rate of gun fatalities is only in the thousands. If only they'd cull their own members instead of randomly chosen targets. Edited June 9, 2014 by Suradit69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) In less than one week, we had the gunman on the Seattle Campus. We had the gunman at the Georgia courthouse. And now we have this heartbreaking cold-blooded mass shooting. When is the senseless gun violence going to stop? What is it going to take for Americans to recognize they have a serious problem and it needs to be treated? Unfortunately they will never treat it...and yet they will try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way... :-( Who is this "they"? Are you talking about "all" 314-million American citizens? Where specifically do you see that "they try to tell the rest of the world they should live their way...?" Life and people are much more complex and variable than your simplistic comments infer. Edited June 9, 2014 by HerbalEd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 29 people shot in Chicago over the weekend, but you won't find that on the front page. Not even page 3 or 4. Chicago has some of the most strict gun-control laws in the USA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 This century might wind up being called 'The Age of Raving Mental Illness.' We had 'The Middle Ages' - Now, we've got the 'The Cruel Ages.' It has been this way since people started inhabiting the earth. Hate and violence is the human condition and not likely to change for many centuries. In our modern era, from general rudeness to murder has gotten much worse in the past few decades. However, in spite of the simplistic statements by many, America does not have a monopoly on violence. Yes, there are countries that have less murder ... but many that have a lot more. However, even the most peaceful countries have their violent horror stories as of late. Out of respect, I won't mention any here, but if you regularly read the news, you'll know which ones. It appears that no country is immune from the madness of the modern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ? Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive. JMHO The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that. It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice. Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period. Obviously ... at least to me ... the present-day problems of rapidly increasing violence is not as simple as controlling guns. However, you are making up things here. Find one study ... not something you "heard" ... that shows that the rate of murder is proportionate to the amount of gun control. You can't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 In less than one week, we had the gunman on the Seattle Campus. We had the gunman at the Georgia courthouse. And now we have this heartbreaking cold-blooded mass shooting. When is the senseless gun violence going to stop? What is it going to take for Americans to recognize they have a serious problem and it needs to be treated? The problem with American shooters is, "THAT THEY ARE BEING TREATED!!!" that is the main problem! Because 95% of American school and public shooters are on doctor prescribed psychological drugs with suicidal, violent, mind bending side effects (gee we are not in Kansas anymore Dorothy?)! Example: SSRI drugs are known to cause violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. Plus insomnia, agitation, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, apathy, disinhibited behavior, demotivation and a personality change similar to the effects of lobotomy. Fact: At least least 31 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 162 wounded and 72 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs). Of the 31 shooters documented to be under the influence of psychiatric drugs, ten were seeing either a psychiatrist or psychologist. Happy Healthy Trails Doc Blake PS The shooters at Columbine Colorado High School actually set enough high explosives in the school to kill almost everyone there, but they failed to go off. So the boys settled for shooting as many as they could instead of just mopping up as they had planned. PSS You see the press in the USA does not interfer with the doctor pusher drug business, it makes far too much money. Easier to blame guns for the problem and shaft the Constitution. This is just the tip of the crazy things going on in the USA today? Reference: Suicidality, violence and mania caused by selective ... www.breggin.com/31-49.p, Peter Breggin You need to actually read some American "press." I've read and watched scores of news articles by the American press about the problems with illicit as well as doctor-prescribed drugs. In fact, it's an issue that gets lots of press in USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 This American does recognize we have a serious problem. Unfortunately our politicians have been bought and paid for by the NRA as well as others. We also should repeal and replace our second amendment which I don't see happening in my lifetime. The amount of gun deaths in America is staggering and will continue.Americans don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, they need to simply enforce it as it was written. Or, if you prefer, in the spirit it was written. The key sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Note: 'A well-regulated militia' It doesn't say homeowners or shop owners. One would assume that the cops were armed though eh? Remember the NRA presidents words?: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'" Idiot. He's an "idiot" all right. The NRA president, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ? Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive. JMHO The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that. It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice. Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period. Obviously ... at least to me ... the present-day problems of rapidly increasing violence is not as simple as controlling guns. However, you are making up things here. Find one study ... not something you "heard" ... that shows that the rate of murder is proportionate to the amount of gun control. You can't. I did not say "the present-day problems of rapidly increasing violence . . . " are the result of 'controlling guns'. Don't misquote. What I said is true; where there is the strictest gun control there is a higher degree of gun violence. The 'present-day problems of rapidly increasing violence' are the result of many phenomena which are not the topic of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 One of the biggest problems in America is the way the police treat other people...They treat my like shit and I often feel like I'm being harassed and persucuted for no apparent reason. It's like they focus on petty stuff and let the real criminals do as they please. It's sad what law enforcement has become in Las Vegas.So which is it? They stop you for no apparent reason at all or for the fact you are doing petty stuff? If you are doing petty stuff that is illegal then its their job to approach you and is not that they are persecuting you. You were chosen for your own actions. I believe this is the kind of thing mrowe is referring to The problem that I see in your video montage is that none of them starts at the beginning of an incident. We do not see the behaviors that led to the original arrest. If you can provide some video clips that provide a full story it would be far more helpful. Also, the poster I was referring to was speaking in the first person about his own experience and he indicated he was breaking the law when approached by police. Thank you for participating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.Yep, and the tropical countries have the most aggressive mosquito control efforts, which must be the reason that malaria is so common in these countries.I am going to take a wild guess you do not live in Chicago. I was visiting my daughter and her family in Chicago. A friend of theirs is a Hispanic 30-year old father of two boys. His household includes himself, his mother, his wife and their two sons. There had been a shooting a few doors down from his house over the weekend and he said it was quite common in his neighborhood of Pilsen. He was asked why he doesn't carry a gun. He laughed and said, "The shootings are gang related. The neighborhood is full of teenage and 20-something year old gangbangers. He said if he were to shoot one of these guys that would be placing a death warrant on himself and his entire family and it would take only days to be carried out. So you go ahead and parrot the naive claims of a correlation between gun violence and strict concealed carry laws. But wahatever you do don't actually make your suggestions to the people who actually live with the violence daily. I wouldn't want you to be faced with reality. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation and, as you described, lawlessness. However, for some reason you believe it is comparable with the mosquito control efforts in tropical countries. Let me assure you one has nothing at all to do with the other. Just think about it for a while. Although I may be 'naive' I have faith that you too will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal. For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.Yep, and the tropical countries have the most aggressive mosquito control efforts, which must be the reason that malaria is so common in these countries.I am going to take a wild guess you do not live in Chicago. I was visiting my daughter and her family in Chicago. A friend of theirs is a Hispanic 30-year old father of two boys. His household includes himself, his mother, his wife and their two sons. There had been a shooting a few doors down from his house over the weekend and he said it was quite common in his neighborhood of Pilsen. He was asked why he doesn't carry a gun. He laughed and said, "The shootings are gang related. The neighborhood is full of teenage and 20-something year old gangbangers. He said if he were to shoot one of these guys that would be placing a death warrant on himself and his entire family and it would take only days to be carried out. So you go ahead and parrot the naive claims of a correlation between gun violence and strict concealed carry laws. But wahatever you do don't actually make your suggestions to the people who actually live with the violence daily. I wouldn't want you to be faced with reality. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation and, as you described, lawlessness. However, for some reason you believe it is comparable with the mosquito control efforts in tropical countries. Let me assure you one has nothing at all to do with the other. Just think about it for a while. Although I may be 'naive' I have faith that you too will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. Your premise seems to have confused the cause/effect conclusions to information you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument. Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either and I only confused you more. I apologize for that analogy without a clearer explanation. Sometimes I forget that English is a second language for many on TV. The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense mosquito populations, they are a result of the dense populations. They are a societal attempt to control the dense populations Similarly, strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the historic high gun crime rates, they don't cause the high rates. I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago because of the nature of that violence. Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago. Edited June 9, 2014 by ClutchClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal. For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide. Perhaps nationwide 'gun control' (assuming you mean in addition to those laws already in existence) would be effective if the perpetrators of most of the murders by guns, for instance gang members, purchased firearms legally. 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of the 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal. For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide. Perhaps nationwide 'gun control' (assuming you mean in addition to those laws already in existence) would be effective if the perpetrators of most of the murders by guns, for instance gang members, purchased firearms legally. 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of the 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence. Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed. Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference? Thanks in advance for your explanation. Edited June 9, 2014 by ClutchClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period.Yep, and the tropical countries have the most aggressive mosquito control efforts, which must be the reason that malaria is so common in these countries.I am going to take a wild guess you do not live in Chicago. I was visiting my daughter and her family in Chicago. A friend of theirs is a Hispanic 30-year old father of two boys. His household includes himself, his mother, his wife and their two sons. There had been a shooting a few doors down from his house over the weekend and he said it was quite common in his neighborhood of Pilsen. He was asked why he doesn't carry a gun. He laughed and said, "The shootings are gang related. The neighborhood is full of teenage and 20-something year old gangbangers. He said if he were to shoot one of these guys that would be placing a death warrant on himself and his entire family and it would take only days to be carried out. So you go ahead and parrot the naive claims of a correlation between gun violence and strict concealed carry laws. But wahatever you do don't actually make your suggestions to the people who actually live with the violence daily. I wouldn't want you to be faced with reality. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation and, as you described, lawlessness. However, for some reason you believe it is comparable with the mosquito control efforts in tropical countries. Let me assure you one has nothing at all to do with the other. Just think about it for a while. Although I may be 'naive' I have faith that you too will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. You seem to have trouble making logical cause/effect conclusions to i formation you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument. Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either. The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense populations, they are a result of the dense populations. Strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the high gun crime rates, they don 't cause the high rates. I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago. Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago. I already posted a recent study (which you excised when initially quoting my post) that addressed the issue (not your senseless comparison regarding pest control, but rather the topic of this thread). Since you appear to believe that it's all about density of population, a contrast to Chicago is Houston which is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic (of or pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors) such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as drug trade and human trafficking. However, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. The citizenry of Houston are well armed. Edited June 9, 2014 by venturalaw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) You seem to have trouble making logical cause/effect conclusions to i formation you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument. Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either. The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense populations, they are a result of the dense populations. Strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the high gun crime rates, they don 't cause the high rates. I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago. Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago. I already posted a recent study (which you excised when initially quoting my post) that addressed the issue (not your senseless comparison regarding pest control, but rather the topic of this thread). Since you appear to believe that it's all about density of population, a contrast to Chicago is Houston which is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic (of or pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors) such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as drug trade and human trafficking. However, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. The citizenry of Houston are well armed. Yeah, it seems that the analogy I used has still really got you confused. I wasn't trying to say gang members in Chicago have malaria. Tell you what, don't you stress about that topic and instead break it down for me how looser gun control is going to lower gun violence in Chicago. Please don't just provide a study as your entire argument without also explaining how it applies to Chicago, please tell me in your words how less restrictive gun laws in Chicago are going to cut down on the 80% of gun homicides in Chicago that are gang related? Those were the statistics you provided, correct? That is your premise, correct? Edited June 9, 2014 by ClutchClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Chicago has some of the strictest gun control policies in the nation Which are all absolutely pointless when you can drive out of state and pick up a veritable arsenal. For gun control to be effective it would need to be nationwide. Perhaps nationwide 'gun control' (assuming you mean in addition to those laws already in existence) would be effective if the perpetrators of most of the murders by guns, for instance gang members, purchased firearms legally. 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of the 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence.Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed. Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference? Thanks in advance for your explanation. You're welcome. Concealed carry permits are not for those who engaged in felonious conduct. Concealed carry permits are for those who are law abiding - for protection. I'm just guessing here but I imagine that gang members do not go through the process of purchasing firearms legally. To do so would lead to their being tracked - which would prove to frusterate their freedom to carry on nefarious activities. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 You seem to have trouble making logical cause/effect conclusions to i formation you read so I attempted to use a different topic in the hopes of helping you to understand the shortcoming of your argument. Unfortunately, you were not successful in grasping that either. The point I was making is that you see aggressive mosquito control efforts in locales that have serious problems with mosquitoes and or mosquito-borne illnesses. Such aggressive control measures do not result in the dense populations, they are a result of the dense populations. Strict gun laws in urban areas with high gun crime rates are a reaction to the high gun crime rates, they don 't cause the high rates. I have also provided you an example of why concealed carry will not curtail gun violence in Chicago. Perhaps you could expound on your thought process by describing how you think it will help the type of gun violence occurring in Chicago. I already posted a recent study (which you excised when initially quoting my post) that addressed the issue (not your senseless comparison regarding pest control, but rather the topic of this thread). Since you appear to believe that it's all about density of population, a contrast to Chicago is Houston which is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic (of or pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic factors) such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as drug trade and human trafficking. However, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. The citizenry of Houston are well armed. Yeah, it seems that the analogy I used has still really got you confused. I wasn't trying to say gang members in Chicago have malaria. Tell you what, don't you stress about that topic and instead break it down for me how looser gun control is going to lower gun violence in Chicago. Please don't just provide a study as your entire argument without also explaining how it applies to Chicago, please tell me in your words how less restrictive gun laws in Chicago are going to cut down on the 80% of gun homicides in Chicago that are gang related? Those were the statistics you provided, correct? That is your premise, correct? Gang members have malaria? Where did you come up with that? Oh, I see - you were being sarcastic. To answer your question I refer you to my last post. Now try to understand without lashing out. The Harvard study I cited (the one you failed to include when quoting my initial post) does address this issue quite well (for clarification, not your pest control issue, but the gun control issue which is the topic of this thread). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence. Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed. Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference? Thanks in advance for your explanation. You're welcome. Concealed carry permits are not for those who engaged in felonious conduct. Concealed carry permits are for those who are law abiding - for protection. I'm just guessing here but I imagine that gang members do not go through the process of purchasing firearms legally. To do so would lead to their being tracked - which would prove to frusterate their freedom to carry on nefarious activities. Yeah, OK, so Chicago has this problem where armed gang members are shooting other armed gang members. And you state above that none of these armed gang members will likely qualify for CC permits. So how are less restrictive gun laws going to cut down on armed gang members shooting other armed gang members? And lets focus on Chicago specifically since that is the location you brought up initially. Not Houston. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venturalaw Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 That is a great point you make. Can you please expound on why looser gun laws, such as concealed carry, will help to lower this gang-on-gang gun violence. Gun Rights advocates state that an armed society is a polite society and when everyone is armed then gun violence actually drops; however, by your own figures above, 80% of gun homicides are gang related and typically gangmembers are armed. Also, it was my understanding that Concealed Carry permits were only issued to persons who could pass a thorough background check, and felons were not allowed to own guns. So, how will making concealed carry permits available to a user group responsible for 80% of gun homicides make a difference? Thanks in advance for your explanation. You're welcome. Concealed carry permits are not for those who engaged in felonious conduct. Concealed carry permits are for those who are law abiding - for protection. I'm just guessing here but I imagine that gang members do not go through the process of purchasing firearms legally. To do so would lead to their being tracked - which would prove to frusterate their freedom to carry on nefarious activities. Yeah, OK, so Chicago has this problem where armed gang members are shooting other armed gang members. And you state above that none of these armed gang members will likely qualify for CC permits. So how are less restrictive gun laws going to cut down on armed gang members shooting other armed gang members? And lets focus on Chicago specifically since that is the location you brought up initially. Not Houston. Thanks again. I brought up Houston to compare cities with similar demographics but which differ significantly regarding firearm purchasing restrictions. The looser restrictions allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the gang members. More importantly however, criminals are less likely to seek to commit crimes in areas where it is more likely for citizens to be armed. That's why many violent crimes occur in 'gun free zones'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah, OK, so Chicago has this problem where armed gang members are shooting other armed gang members. And you state above that none of these armed gang members will likely qualify for CC permits. So how are less restrictive gun laws going to cut down on armed gang members shooting other armed gang members? And lets focus on Chicago specifically since that is the location you brought up initially. Not Houston. Thanks again.I brought up Houston to compare cities with similar demographics but which differ significantly regarding firearm purchasing restrictions. The looser restrictions allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves against the gang members. More importantly however, criminals are less likely to seek to commit crimes in areas where it is more likely for citizens to be armed. That's why many violent crimes occur in 'gun free zones'. Yeah...OK...so armed gang members in Chicago who regularly exchange armed gunfire against other armed gang members are for some reason going to now be frightened because somebody might legally be carrying a concealed weapon? Thats where you lose me. And now you have said most violent crime occurs in gun free zones and you have also claimed 80% of gun homicides are committed by gang members so are you saying gang members have most of their shootouts on school property? I don't quite follow your logic here. It seems like you are very good at collecting all these different facts and figures and parroting the pro-gun lobby mantra but you are having some trouble connecting it all in an applicable format to defend your position. Thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah...OK...so armed gang members in Chicago who regularly exchange armed gunfire against other armed gang members are for some reason going to now be frightened because somebody might legally be carrying a concealed weapon? Thats where you lose me. Criminals much prefer to rob people who are not armed and they often target civilians. It is not that hard to figure out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchClark Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Yeah...OK...so armed gang members in Chicago who regularly exchange armed gunfire against other armed gang members are for some reason going to now be frightened because somebody might legally be carrying a concealed weapon? Thats where you lose me.Criminals much prefer to rob people who are not armed and they often target civilians. It is not that hard to figure out. Well, UG, you are obviously not well educated on the specifics of gang violence and gun related violence in Chicago since its not an issue of gang members robbing society at large. Its a very specific type of gang on gang violence.Ofcourse, it sure would help your argument if you could somehow fit everything into the context of your narrative, to be sure. You see, the pro gun community loves to correlate the high incidence of gun and gang violence in Chicago with the restrictive gun laws; however, they are unable to describe the correlation except in a very general and non-specific argument that has little to do with the actual type of violence occurring in Chicago. Perhaps you are applying the way it works in your community in another region of the country and assuming it must be that way everyplace...but then theres that problem of what happens when one assumes. Tell you what UG and the other pro-gun fellas. I have to go to see my Doc. Rather than just responding with more of your age old worn out arguments that simply ape the NRA mantra, take some time and really try to fit your arguments to the specifics of gun violence in Chicago. Take a couple hours and actually read up on it. I promise to respond when you can actually provide an argument that shows you used some critical thinking skills and not just read a paragraph out of the american Rifleman. ;-) Edited June 9, 2014 by ClutchClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 More people die in motor vehicle "accidents" but the governments want to keep people driving when they have absolutely no idea of what they are doing. Maybe we should ban cars as well ? Judging by the intelligence of the electorate in this country, not many people should drive. JMHO The topic is death due to gun violence, not motor vehicle accidents. Both are problems, but are completely unrelated, as are the solutions to these problems. Surely you can see that. It's pretty obvious where you stand on the gun control issue. Do you think there is any correlation at all between the availability of guns in America and death/injuries due to guns? Just a yes/no answer would suffice. Recent Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive. http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/It's been proven over and over. The cities/nations with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest rates of murder by guns. The answer is to deal with the mentally ill, not gun owners. Period. You convieniently forgot this bit from the link you provide: "It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates" Hope you aren't a real lawyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah...OK...so armed gang members in Chicago who regularly exchange armed gunfire against other armed gang members are for some reason going to now be frightened because somebody might legally be carrying a concealed weapon? Thats where you lose me. Criminals much prefer to rob people who are not armed and they often target civilians. It is not that hard to figure out. Two armed trained cops got killed. Fat lot of good guns did them. But yes, it will make a difference elsewhere - look dad, flying pigs! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Well, UG, you are obviously not well educated on the specifics of gang violence and gun related violence in Chicago since its not an of gang members robbing society at large. If you don't realize that gang members commit numerous crimes against civilians, than you must be a lot more "uneducated" than I am. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 I believe this is the kind of thing mrowe is referring to The problem that I see in your video montage is that none of them starts at the beginning of an incident. We do not see the behaviors that led to the original arrest. If you can provide some video clips that provide a full story it would be far more helpful. Also, the poster I was referring to was speaking in the first person about his own experience and he indicated he was breaking the law when approached by police. Thank you for participating. LOL you can try to duck and weave as much as you like, but the issue of police brutality against innocent victims sticks out like a sore thumb, which is corroborated on this eyewitness News report by a lady who phoned and said she saw the whole thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Ah right so police aren't the "Good guys" with guns. NRA members are. <sigh> 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Ah right so police aren't the "Good guys" with guns. NRA members are. <sigh> evidently Edited June 9, 2014 by Asiantravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now