E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCHICAGO -- Three people have been killed and six others wounded in Chicago gun violence since Friday afternoon, authorities said. Several of the shooting victims, including two of the people killed, were teenagers.
The most recent fatality happened about 12:50 a.m. (1:50 a.m. ET) Sunday, when a man was shot and killed in the Lawndale neighborhood.
Damian Barnes, 22, was sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle when a gunman got in and shot him in the back, police News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro said.
Earlier in the weekend, Rey Dorantes, 14, was shot multiple times in the chest while standing on the porch of his home in the West Town neighborhood about 11:50 p.m. Friday, according to police. He would have turned 15 on Tuesday, according to a source.
Another teen was killed in a fatal shooting that happened about 6:40 p.m. Friday in the West Side Lawndale neighborhood. Victor Vega, 15, and another male were walking when an unknown male approached and fired shots, according to police and the medical examiner’s office. The attack was gang-related, a source said.
The two slain teens were the youngest of at least eight people shot in Chicago since Friday afternoon.
A 17-year-old was in an alley in South Normal Avenue about 12:30 p.m. Sunday when he was shot in the shoulder, according to police News Affairs Officer Jose Estrada.
A male walked into Rush University Medical Center with a gunshot wound to the hip about 2:50 a.m. on Sunday, police News Affairs Officer Hector Alfaro said. He was shot in the Lawndale neighborhood, police said.
Two boys, aged 16 and 17, were wounded in a shooting in the Chatham neighborhood just after 4 p.m. Friday, police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala said.
Vice President Joe Biden will present his task force's gun policy recommendations Thursday – among them, most likely, to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
The younger boy was shot in the thigh was transported to hospital in critical condition. The 17-year-old suffered a graze wound to the chest.
In an apparently unrelated shooting in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood, a 17-year-old was shot in the torso and arm in a gang-related attack about 2 p.m.
And in the Uptown neighborhood, a 19-year-old man was shot in the buttocks about 12:50 p.m. near North Clarendon and West Buena avenues, police said. Ald. James Cappleman said in a Tweet that the shooting might have stemmed from a drug deal gone wrong.
Man with minor gunshot wound at Clarendon & Buena. May be due to drug deal gone bad. Area back to normal but area schools notified.
— James Cappleman (@JamesCappleman) January 11, 2013
Leave a Comment:
This is what Gun Control Looks Like, the Bad Guys Still Have Guns. Chicago is a Prime Example of why Gun Control Does Not Work, Disarm the Law Abiding Citizen and this is what happens. A Societal Change and a Return to Active Reponsible Parenting is the only thing that will ever turn this around.
You exactly nailed it . Seems they were all gang-bangers or gang-banger trainees that won't graduate.
Again, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun...
Too many guns out there and we'll "never" get them all out of the perps hands...
My kind of town. Chicago is, my kind of town, Chicago is
If ever there was a clear indication that gun control is not the answer to gun violence Chicago is it!!! The city has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and yet has one the highest, if not the highest incidence of gun violence of any city in the country. The answer to gun violence is not more laws and regulations, criminals do not abide by the law and regulations. The solution is to enforce the laws that exist and have strict penalties for those that violate the law. There needs to be mandatory, meaningful sentences for anyone caught illegally possessing a gun and severe penalties for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime whether they fire it or not. Anyone caught with an illegal weapon should face at least two years in prison and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime should face at least ten years. If you fire a weapon in the commission of a crime it should be a minimum sentence of 15 years as this willfully endangering peoples lives - no plea bargains for lower sentences allowed. There need to be programs that address reducing crime in general and stop with this absurd focus on the gun as the problem. The gun is not the problem, the criminal holding the gun is the problem!!!
Do you people realise Chicago isn't even in the top 25 most dangerous cities yet it's the only one MSN regularly reports on weekly shootings? With an article like this those on the right can spew about Obama's home town and get those on the left riled about gun violence. That's called a twofer.
http://kissdetroit.com/3386066/fbi-lists-top-20-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-in-2012/
The "wars" on crime, drugs and poverty are abject failures because the most important "war" has been lost so badly.
The war on illiteracy.
When most Americans read at an 8th grade level the streets of Chicago, Detroit, Compton and others will continue to be covered in blood.
When Chicago Public Schools produce these 11th Graders Meeting College Readiness Benchmarks in 2011: 21% in Reading, 19% in Math, 11% in Science, 38% in English, do we really expect these murders to improve?
Since we have allowed our social, cultural and moral principles to be decided by political correctness rather than common sense this is the society we deserve. When we finally admit that Progressivisms social and economic justice is nonsense, we may have a chance to save our cities and citizens.
chitcago again. Guess McD ain't got 'nough wings for everybody.
Gang-related shootings after midnight in Chicago.
Good...Keep killing them off. Another thug removed from the American landscape.
It's a good day.
You know, liberals, why don't you take these "baby mama's" some condoms so that the don't breed any more gang bangers? Good people would like to live in peace.
chi town really needs to pass some gun laws! sounds like the wild west out there. oh wait what? you say they already have some. working well arent they! must be all the law abiding are going crazy because we know criminals can have guns!
Better yet !!
Bring our battle hardened troops HOME. Then deploy them in Chicago and Detroit. Declare Marchelle law , with orders to shoot to kill. That solves the gang problem once and for all.
The night chicago died...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXY1_F5YkoM
A shame so many of our children are growing up seriously twisted.
sarcasticus1 its a shame parents are failing our children!
Apparantly they forgot to tell the bad guys they banned guns! Because everyone knows criminals will follow the law!
f hill:
No doubt! Aside from the facts that many kids have rejected most forms of "convention", parents who are engaged are, at the least, fighting an uphill battle within a culture permeated by sensuality, drugs, violence, and very little solid foundation upon which to build. Aside from many people having kids before they are mature enough to handle it; other parents give up, get lazy, and those who don't are challenged by institutions who do not like the way they are raising their kids pushing them into a corner.
Gun control, take away guns from good people and leave those in the hand of the bad ones.
9 out of 10 gang bangers shot, not bad! Now for the bad news.
Quiet Please! Chicago is but one example of America's "FREEDOM" at work.
Let's treat the sympton (guns) not the problem (education, hoplessness, violence, morals, meaningless jobs, you know, What America is really about)
JS IN SD
You just didn't take it far enough. In jail we have to feed and support them. It would be much easier to just cut off a hand if they use a gun. People would think twice ( but not more than that lol) about using one then. The middle eastern country's do have a few good idea's. No welfare or government support if this happens. We will either have less gun violence or a lot of people with no hands.
of course gun control doesn't work in a city wherein one can drive to the neighboring state in 20 minutes and purchase all the guns and ammo one desires...
Keep it up guys...you're doing great!
Let's try for ten next weekend!
What's not mentioned is that the probability of any of those guns being owned legally are around zero percent. How about being carried legally? Again, probably 0%.
More killings in Chicago with GUNS...Somehow you gun nuts are trying to turn this instance into a talking point on your behalf. You are completely delusional. Your talking point the other day when those 2 kids got strangled was sarcastic posts like "ban hands" or "criminals will find ways to murder without guns" And now 9 people get SHOT and you want to somehow put this article in your backpocket to the gun control debate? You must be crazy. A bunch of FogHorn Leghorns. Of course criminals are the ones creating crimes with guns! When you use a gun to commit a crime you are a criminal! The whole concept behind stricter gun laws is to attempt to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands and prevent crimes. And to prevent people from owning their own war chest. But here you are celebrating people getting shot in Chicago. "Criminals don't obey laws!" Well there's a new concept.
Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.
You an anarchists.
.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg and his "Mayors Against Lawful Gun-Owners"....got it all completely Back-Asswards....
P.0bama and Congress...wanna do something about gun violence......Make STOP & FRISK the law of the land...Institute a 1% National Jail Construction Sales Tax....I'll gladly pay a penny on the dollar as long as it only went for New Jails....
It seems the gangs are culling their ranks.
"You know, liberals, why don't you take these "baby mama's" some condoms so that the don't breed any more gang bangers? Good people would like to live in peace."
Hell, even if they did they'd have to hang around with her till she got ready to get it on and personally slide the damn thing on the penis themselves or else it would just be tossed in the garbage unused.
Let's take programs that don't reduce crime at the city/state/regional level and implement them at the federal level and expect them to reduce crime. Thank you for helping me see how delusional I was.
@DrowningGrover... Are you talking about Wisconsin or Indiana, because if it's Indiana, you are spewing crap. I was a FFL dealer in Indiana and you apparently spread untrues to "merit" your cause. My question is, why go to an adjoining state when you can buy any firearm you want on the street in downtown Chicago? If you're criminal, you don't care if it is a legal gun or not, as displayed by their obedience of the no firearm laws already in effect in Cook Co./Chicago jurisdiction. Chicago was a model city during the Prohibition Era too !!
DrowningGrover;
"of course gun control doesn't work in a city wherein one can drive to the neighboring state in 20 minutes and purchase all the guns and ammo one desires...
You know a lib has lost a debate when he/she star"ts to blame everyone else. The problem with the above logic is it still fails to explain why the neighboring states don't have similar problems. The Mayor of Chicago already posited this argument and it was swiftly dismissed as illogical.
DrowningGrove Try to legally go out of the state say Michigan to Wisconsin with an out of state ID and buy a firearm.. That is against the law and no licensed dealer would allow the transfer.. The required background check would reject the transaction even before they scanned the FBI database.. You are just spreading disinformation and anti-gun propaganda.. Moral decay is the root of Americas problem and the socialist programs that are allowing it to fester and grow need to be cleaned up.. Some people are addicted to social aid and have several generations that live off of it.. They lie and mislead the agencies about things on the applications to get free stuff.. What makes me sick is the Democrats seem to approve as it is basically buying them votes.. The video of the woman praising Obama for it, "alls ya gotsta do is goes down there and tells them ya aint got no nutten and theys be givin ya a fone and other free stuff, praise Obama"..
richard If you would read the Constitution and the letters of the people who wrote it you might see the reality.. Obama wishes he could rewrite it to fit his socialist ideals but it was set up to protect the people from the government.. Have you looked at what a bloated mess the Federal government has become?? They have far exceeded there mandate and are trying to completely destroy State rights and become all powerful.. They have circumvented and violated the founding documents with filth like the Patriot act which is anything but patriotic.. The founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves because of the trash in Washington.. We are becoming slaves to a tax machine instead of the government serving us..
Are the gun laws preventing more deaths in the street of Chicago?
You are a nut.
richardharrow
1.22 & 1.23
Out of your two comments the second is the better of the two.
Personally, I've always believed that we should clear out a large section of a city like Chicago of all law abiding citizens, and bring in the druggies, and gang bangers and the like from all over the country into that section. Arm them all to the teeth, and let them shoot it out.
The one who kills the most and survives, wins.
i wish all these citys with gang problems would provide a community service a do gun training.with a little work they can be shown how to hit their target without injury to innocent bystanders! that way they can just kill each other off problem solved!
It's a societal failure. A culture of militarism and violence will produce militarism and violence as can be seen by the mass shootings and gang-related shootings. A lot of racist comments on these boards, but I didn't see race mentioned by the very same posters for all the mass shootings that just occurred.
One can find evidence on these boards of how hateful we have become as a country. Education has been cut for years, which is leading to greater ignorance, easier mind control, and more hatred. It's easier to control the minds of ignorant people than it is to control educated people.
How many people on these boards that claim to be great citizens have even took the time to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or speeches like George Washington's Farewell Address? By the comments I see of the most "patriotic posters", it seems very few have. They have no time to read, but seemingly have a lot of it to spew their ignorance.
richardharrow, i am not a "gun nut" as you say and most of theses"gun nuts" are pointing out to BLIND individuals that chi town already has STRICK gun laws in effect,and what is happening? your blanket statement is FALSE, everyone i know with guns RESPECTS laws. And if you libs are REALLY trying to prevent gun violence,why not start with the CRIMINALS(seems you are too scared to do that,so you want to take guns away from the EASY targets,law abiding citizens!)ENFORCEMENT is the key and NO you will never stop violence with MORE laws(again ENFORCEMENT). And larry, you are right on about chicago,seems someone is pushing this one when DC is WORSE.
i keep hearing abput chicago and the gun violence and how the police can not handle everything going on, as hard as it would be to give the order i think obama needs to step up and decalre some type of marshal law and use the united states military or national guard to assist local police and help take back the streets from the gangs at some point you have to ask how many more people are going to die before our goverment steps in the citizens of chicago are crying out for help and the police cant handle the situation, and i know all the anti gun people arefeeding off these stories in the news but i know here in kansas in the last month theres been atleast 3 home invasions where people broke in and home owners shot the intruders all i can say is imagine what would have happened to them if they did not have their guns to defend there family
Scooter, possibly you cannot follow logic. Someone asked me to explain it further in the next post. Scroll down to see an example. Its not a riddle. If you do not like it because you come across as an anarchist-That's fine. But if you agree its logical then please do not mention criminals and gun laws again in the same breath. It's not a riddle. Here- let me repost it without "stricter gun" in it. Now read it:
Those who oppose laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.
Where are those liberal ID10T's 'feisty red head' and 'pigotry'?
gabriel-there were no ARS' in this story,only criminals with guns(probably handguns)
Yo, Richard,
Delusional Gun Nut here.
Richard, possibly you cannot follow logic.
Somehow you "anti-gun" nuts are trying to turn this instance into a talking point on your behalf. You are completely delusional.
p.s.
There "is" no explanation on your behalf. Nothing you say will ever work.
THE END
Chicago should ban gangs.
How many shootings have been committed by legal registered gun owners?
Drowning Grover #1.19-
"If ever there was a clear indication that gun control is not
the answer to gun violence Chicago is it!!! The city has some of the most
restrictive gun laws in the nation and yet has one the highest, if not the
highest incidence of gun violence of any city in the country."
"of course gun control doesn't work in a city wherein one can
drive to the neighboring state in 20 minutes and purchase all the guns and ammo
one desires..."
Your point is counter-productive to your argument. You are saying that we should create more laws to limit/deny access to guns when the laws we already have in place are not being enforced. You think
gun control would work if one could not drive across state borders to purchase a gun. It is currently a federal offense to transport firearms across state lines so IF these thugs did in fact legally purchase their weapons in a neighboring state and brought them across state lines then they already broke the law in acquiring their weapons, what makes you think they will not continue? OR if their weapons were illegally acquired in Chicago (which is likely the case) what is going to stop them from continuing to illegally acquire more weapons with more gun control? The ONLY way any added gun control might have a positive outcome is if every single gun in America and our bordering countries were outlawed and confiscated. Americans have guns, millions of Americans, millions of guns, it’s in our blood, it’s how we became a sovereign nation (emphasize sovereign since you libs are so intent on handing American
governance over to the UN); how would you propose we get all those guns out of the hands of all those Americans? How do you propose we enforce such a thing? How do you propose we pay for it? And when you come for all our guns, will you be prepared for a war, prepared to lay down your life to take my gun out of my hands and out of the hands of every other gun owner in America? Because I ASSURE you that all those gun owners will be willing to lay down their lives to keep their guns in their hands. And how exactly do you propose to steal everyone’s guns from them without getting shot? Will you show up at our doors and hold us all at gunpoint? That would also be counter-productive to your argument.
RichardHarrow #1.22
“The whole concept behind stricter gun laws is to attempt to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands and prevent crimes. And to prevent people from owning their own war chest. But here you are celebrating people getting shot in Chicago. "Criminals don't obey laws!" Well there's a new concept. Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever. You an anarchists.”
No crap that is the concept behind tighter gun laws!! But how EXACTLY will that do a damn thing for the cause? There are already 300 million privately owned guns in America; if you outlaw guns that still leaves 300 million guns that are privately owned in America. The only difference will be that now only criminals can get more guns whereas law abiding citizens cannot. So you outlaw guns in America; what about
Mexico and South America? I was unaware that violent crime and drug cartels (AND GUNS) have been irradiated there. “stricter gun laws is to attempt to prevent people from owning their own war chest.” Actually, this is the very idea that the 2nd Amendment set out to protect, our right to owning our own war chest so that when our government got so out of control with taking away all our rights and
freedoms, such as owning guns, we would have a means to stand up for ourselves, much the same as we did in the Revolutionary War. “Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever. You an anarchists.” Those who endorse stricter gun laws based on the idea that “criminals will follow the laws” are people who do not believe in crime whatsoever. You are socialist-communists.”
So to be perfectly clear, the ONLY way additional gun control will do anything to curb gun violence in America is if every single gun in America (and the world) is confiscated and destroyed. Then we can destroy all the bombs, missiles, nukes, fighter jets, drones, tanks, grenades and what have you and achieve world peace. Holy crap, it’s so simple!! Why didn’t we think of this years ago? We should have
just never invented guns in the first place; or murder, or crime, or hate, or jealousy, or just plain old evil; yes, we should never have invented evil. Whoever invented evil should be shot; oh wait, that’s right, we can shoot him because we have no more guns or murder.
Seriously you crazy liberals, get your act together and actually do some
critical thinking about what you are proposing.
I know that’s unheard of these days seeing as how your president is set
on raising a nation of welfare zombies (who are encouraged by public policy
that your president put in place) who don’t know how to think critically about
an issue and who are discouraged from having any amount of responsibility or
personal accountability, but come on now you guys you can do better.
all the media keeps taking about assault rifles these are not assault rifles! an assault rifle has different modes semi auto three round burst and full auto. these are already illegal and what does the most damage i would think a 12 ga with 00 buck!
Even though the article only indicates that some of these shootings were gang related, it is safe to assume from the ages of the victims that they were all gang motivated shootings. There are to many similarities between age group and neighborhood to ignore. The spike in shootings in Chicago this year most likely can be tributed to turf wars fought by street gangs trying to dominate their territory.
Creek Dog, you sound incoherent, have another breakfast beer.
Eb-Who said "criminals will follow the laws"? It's another delusion by your "type". Then you went into banning all guns. You special folks started up this "criminals dont follow the laws" mumbo jumbo-You think because I am arguing your "point" that I believe that criminals followed laws? If they followed laws then they wouldn't be criminals! HAHA Just because you have flawed logic, do not assume that I do.
And you are the person that just brought up making all guns illegal. LMAO Another conspiracy theory on your part. Go spray paint a public restroom or something you anarchist. Also if you post back please do not write a book. If you need a lot of words to say something then probably you are saying a ton of B.S.
"for it is with words as with sunbeams - the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn. " R. Southey
With that being said; all I have to say is this
Those who oppose laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.
Now choke on it.
richardharrow....I think you are looking at what the "Pro-2nd Amendment group" are arguing from the wrong angle. The argument isn't why pass more laws because criminals are going to break them anyway. The argument is passing more laws will not keep the criminals from breaking the ones that are already on the books. The new laws will only affect the law-abiding, so why pass new ones. I think the whole point is moot at this point because there is no way most if any legislation makes it past the House of Representatives.
Any city with a strong liberal lean looks like this. People want the government to take care of them because society is keeping them down, and if they dont get all they want, they take it from someone else. Liberal entitlements are slowly destroying our country. Yet fools on the left will ignore all of this so they can get their "free" birth control that they dont know they are still paying for. Pathetic
Don't listen to him, Creekdog, you make more sense on here than most of the articles. These liberals don't see it, and ya know, so be it. Coming to a city near you. As time passes, I'm learning to be more concerned about my rural community and less concerned about these liberal cities. Let em have at it. When the smoke clears, there will be a higher IQ left over in this country and maybe some better morals.
As far as the bonehead who wants more taxes added so we can have more prisons... Why don't we just clear out the worthless trash we are storing forever in the jails we currently have? A bit more death penalty leaves more room for the smaller offender and less tax payer funds spent on the trash.
Larry (#1.4) - You really missed the point of the article. MSN does NOT report weekly shootings in Chicago to give right-wingers "ammo" to battle obama and his 'hood.
The point of the article was to draw attention to "teenagers" being shot and killed. Of Course NBCSnooze tries to minimize the facts regarding the "kids" being out at 2:30 a.m.
The anti-gun nuts are trying to get "long" guns banned or restricted when it is the hand guns that do over 95% of the shootings/killings. It is their attempt to get their foot in the door - focus on the "assault" guns and the impact it has on our "youth". Ignore the fact that the youths are the ones committing the crimes however.
Obama loves Obama, Just to be fair give Toni Preckwinkle a little time she's doing a helluva job. She free'd up millions of wasted tax dollars by outing crooked systems and incompetence in Chicago and Cook County. It's a good start. She was also in the news a few weeks ago, telling Police Supt. McCarthy that his system to curb gun violence is " to arrest everybody". And as I have said here all along the President should have intervened in the gun violence in Chicago a long time ago. What the hell was he waiting for? Did he think the gangs were another voting base not to offend? Yes this is a state and city issue and not the Feds juristdiction but so is Sandy Hook! People who live in the South and West side have to be offended that the blood of the little black boys and girls that were shot and killed all these years don't seem to matter. The violence is even in the President's own nieghborhood wether he is home or not. If he didn't want to get involved when he was here,all he had to do was blow a call into Mayor Emanuel from The White House. That goes to Rev. Jackson, Jackson Jr, Sandi Jackson, Bobby Rush, and the rest of the "do nothing" Chicago Aldermen who think the answer is to protest outside of a suburban Gun Shop. You realize how bad it is and how incompetent our South Side leaders from Obama on down have been. When the only person from the community with a ligit plan of action is Louis Farrakhan! He took his Muslim followers to the streets knocking on every door with a message that this has got to stop!
richard i don't oppose laws on that basis, i oppose feel good laws that don't take care of the problem.on that basis give me your idea of a law that will work to stop gun violence. the gun laws we have now are sufficient,ENFORCEMENT of those laws would serve us better then to make it harder on (i know you don't believe they exist) LAW ABIDING gun owners. please interject YOUR logic(i know you like that word,not sure if you know what it MEANS though)
No Fiesty, No Bev, No Baylie, No SeekingINsanity(MORON), No RedDevPS, to tell me Chicago's a wonderful Democratic Utopia! Democrats KILL incentive (votes purchased with tax dollars) . This will not go away with Democrats in charge. Has Obama said ANYTHING about the gun murders in Chicago? Of course not. Did ANY of the murder victims look like him, what a pathetic panderer! This Democratic disease is spreading all over the Chicagoland area, has been for years. It's time for the Democrats to accept responsibilty, but that is simply what they will not due! Anybody who would vote for this is an IDIOT! And Ill. is full of them!
More gun deaths that exactly fit the data for 2011 supplied by Chicago's PD itself:
Young black males out on public streets after dark.
That's not racist, that's statistics.
I see that drugs and gangs have something to do with some of these cases, too.
More evidence that preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns will reduce crime!
That's sarcasm. Some of you tend to miss that.
It's really quite simple and easily proven as to where the REAL problem lies...
Below are thee (3) IDENTICAL sentences. Three (3) words have been changed so you can easily see a pattern evolve. Unfortunately, there will still be some who just do not get it. They are covered in the quote at the bottom...
When a DRUNKARD gets behind the STEERING WHEEL of a CAR and kills someone,
we blame the DRUNKARD.
-- or –
When a TERRORIST gets behind the CONTROLS of an AIRPLANE and kills someone,
we blame the TERRORIST.
-- so then... –
When a LUNATIC/CRIMINAL gets behind the TRIGGER of a GUN and kills someone,
we blame the __________.
A) LUNATIC/CRIMINAL
B) TRIGGER
C) GUN
The CORRECT answer is: A) LUNATIC/CRIMINAL
The answer FORCED ON US is: C) GUN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The big irony is that if you go to the Brady Campaign's website, (pro gun control), they themselves prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that EVERYWHERE there are MORE law RESTRICTING gun ownership, that they are the SAME places with the MOST GUN VIOLENCE. Go figure!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This can't be happening in BO's home town and state.
The strickest gun control in the country has the highest gun murder rate in the country.
Illinois had a large tax increase a little while back to handle it's debt. The result.... debt has got much higher.
Why is it that these two staples of Democratic philosophies are not working in a very Democratic place????
Richard,
Listen, I don't go back and forth like a child with an anti-gun guy calling everyone who doesn't agree with them all kinds of names.
When it comes to people like you, "a fire cracker going off makes them have to change their shorts", that probably never fired a gun but protest against them, then I do not have time for them as in, I do not have time to say the opposite point you're trying to make...
Go back and read how you arrogantly call people different names and go tell them to spray paint a bathroom like an immature kid. Really.
Here's a few words you wrote towards others;
Dude, you remind me of a skinhead who says basically the same thing just towards racism instead. You're about one inch from being a skinhead.
You need to understand that thousands of people post and read here. Even internationally so the last thing you want to do is make enemies but it seems people like you, are trying to just to keep the taste in your mouths. If you're trying to make enemies, you're doing a great job at it.
There are a lot of anti-gun people on this thread but they are mostly all decent people who post by getting their points across without being arrogant. You've obviously got some issues at home or need anger counseling or something. Good luck with that. Really..............
I am done with you...
You collapsed me? HAHA.
well here ya go again:
More killings in Chicago with GUNS...Somehow you gun nuts are trying to turn this instance into a talking point on your behalf. You are completely delusional. Your talking point the other day when those 2 kids got strangled was sarcastic posts like "ban hands" or "criminals will find ways to murder without guns" And now 9 people get SHOT and you want to somehow put this article in your backpocket to the gun control debate? You must be crazy. A bunch of FogHorn Leghorns. Of course criminals are the ones creating crimes with guns! When you use a gun to commit a crime you are a criminal! The whole concept behind stricter gun laws is to attempt to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands and prevent crimes. And to prevent people from owning their own war chest. But here you are celebrating people getting shot in Chicago. "Criminals don't obey laws!" Well there's a new concept.
Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.
You are anarchists.
if you ever been to Chicago you know you cant drive anywhere in 20 minutes
RichardHarrow #1.47- you can’t be serious! YOU said criminals will follow the law in your previous post #1.22… “Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.” Of course criminals won’t follow the laws, that is my point; they don’t follow the gun laws we have now so what in your right mind makes you think they will follow MORE gun laws? They won’t!! My logic is spot on; your logic is, at best, severely flawed from the very basis of your argument which means you have no logic. The reason I use more words rather than less words to make a point here is because if I used less, more articulate words (bigger confusing words), you simple-minded liberals would have no idea what I’m talking about. I guess I won this argument though seeing as how you went with making a personal attack on me rather than debating the issue, typical of a liberal. You have no logic, you have no argument, you said the same crap in this post as in the first one I commented on.
With that being said, all I have to say is this:
Those who endorse stricter gun laws based on the idea that “criminals will follow the laws” are people who do not believe in crime whatsoever. You are socialist-communists.
Rick-7570
Right because there aren't a thousand and one ways someone without a hand could get government assistance. If we're going to feed and support them one way or the other we might as well lock them up and keep them the hell away from the rest of us.
richardharrow
No @!$%# Sherlock. Now if you'd join the rest of us in reality you'd see clearly that those efforts FAIL each and every time. Anyone who can read a story about gun violence in a city that tries to "prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands" by passing some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and NOT realize those efforts are an epic failure has his head crammed up his ass.
Those who demand stricter gun laws based on the failed premise that it will stop criminals from acquiring them are people who have no grip on reality whatsoever.
Why the hell would anyone believe in a law that obvioulsy doesn't work? That may be the definition of stupidity. Almost as stupid as suggesting that if someone doesn't want a failed law they must not believe in any laws.
Creek Dog-You are going to take snippets of my posts and then spin it as though I am out here picking fights? Do you work for Fox News or something? Here are some real hateful words and I am using a whole sentence unlike you Fox Dog.
To pretend that I am the only one here that is the least bit offensive is naive. And how about you. You are more of the limp passive aggressive type.
Nice one Richard, no response eh? Didn't think so, or maybe you're still forming your rebuttle looking up a bunch of internet articles to post links to them on here like every other liberal does; oh I'm not able to form my own opinions and ideas so I'll just post a bunch of links to someone elses ideas. #1.65 so just because someone said somthing that offended you makes it ok for you to be a douchebag; two wrongs make a right do they? Shame on you Richard.
Anyone, please tell me about "gun-running" laws. How well are they working? Are there any major busts to speak of? Who are the gun-runners? etc.
1.65 is NOT offensive, it's proven, true fact. Sorry if that offends, but truth hurts. Google murder by race once.
Passing more gun laws won't do anything to the people that will use them for ill will.
So if we made tougher laws against robbing banks i suppose people would stop robbing banks?
LMAO Ebeneser! Sorry you felt snubbed. Here is you:
RichardHarrow #1.47- you can’t be serious! YOU said criminals will follow the law in your previous post #1.22… “Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.”
And here is me: "where does it say that I said that criminals will follow laws. That is an oxymoron. This guy is a moron"
That's when I stopped reading. Stop making up stuff about me.
obama-will-ruin-the-usa banned, re-reg of multiple accounter obama_sucks and others.
Gee, I wonder if Obama had a son, would any of these gangbangers or gangbangers in training that were shot or killed look like his imaginary son...????
Never a word about this continual and constant black-on-black gang violence in Chicago from Barry, Al or Jesse. Heck, not even a word from the Crusty Red Head and Bev and Piggy and all the other hard core liberal losers who frequently post here. Figures.
Someone suggested that Chicago isn't ranked in the top 25 dangerous cities and that MSN is just picking on Chicago, however, when you look at the murder rate and compare it to other cities world wide.....Chicago is the murder capitol of the world!!
Here's how Chicago ranks in murders per 100,000 among cities considered their peers, based on a murder total of 505 for last year.
Singapore 0.4
Tokyo 0.5
Hong Kong 0.6
Berlin 1.0
Sydney 1.0
London 1.4
Toronto 1.7
Amsterdam 1.8
Paris 4.4
New York 6.0
Los Angeles 7.5
Mexico City 8.0
Moscow 9.6
Sao Paulo 15.6
Chicago 19.4
So I am not sure what others consider "dangerous"......but in my humble opinion....being murdered tops the cake when it comes to danger.
Violence doesn't magically disappear when guns are confiscated, it just manifests itself in other ways. See the UK and Australia for proof.
Law enforcement is not obligated to protect our interest, see US vs Heller, supreme court case. Trying to tell us that we don't need an 'assault rifle' is like some self righteous activist telling you that you cannot buy that spendy, fast sports car because it is 'too dangerous'. Thousands of people are killed by hot headed sports car drivers, you can't ignore that.
The American public needs firearms to guard itself against criminals who will never follow the laws, no matter how much the liberals stomp their feet in self righteous indignation.
Nothing like a "Chicago Gun Violence" story to unleash all that latent fear and loathing of America's favorite boogieman, the African-American male. Ooogie boogie, white people, ooogie boogie!!
But why all the thug and gangbanger talk, pale face? Isn't this the America you wanted: one awash with guns and gun violence like the Old West with vigilante Marshall Dillions roaming the streets as if he was played by "Dirty" Harry Callhoun chasing about perps, supposed perps, probable perps, and possible perps-in-waiting with Rambo's M-60?
Oh yeah, thats right: these kids don't have the proper complexion for that kind of self-protection, thus:
The best way to get comprehensive control laws passed in this country is to advocate universal gun ownership within communities of color, especially within the black community.
America loves its 2nd Amendment rights, but only for its privileged caste. So if you hate to see more guns in the hands of "those scary negroes" advocate for more guns in the hands of minorities, and watch the streets fill full of "real Americans" crying, pleading, demanding the government take those guns away. Believe that cause its true, its damned true.
America eat its young (NOM NOM NOM!) and picks its teeth with the barrels of 300 million guns in circulation.
RichardHarrow #1.70- there you go again attacking me because you are too simple-minded to understand the complexity of what I am saying. Your personal attacks reveal your desperation to hold on to your faulty conjectures about guns. You say you stopped reading my post in the middle of it (when your head exploded because you couldn't comprehend the logic of my reasoning), maybe that is your problem; you have the attention span of a child and are missing half of the argument thus concealing the logic of said argument. And to be clear, you are correct, you didn't explicitly say "criminals will follow laws"; but you implied it by saying "Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.” Now, do I really need to explain to your simple mind how that statement implies that you believe that criminals will follow laws? Your argument is based on the premise that more gun laws will reduce gun violence; but now apparently you're saying that criminals don't abide by the law; so please enlighten me as to the logic of your argument that 1) criminals produce violence 2) more gun laws will reduce violence 3) criminals don't abide by the law. Those statements (that are all part of your argument for strict gun control) oppose each other, it's like say 2+2=5...it just doesn't work, your logic is flawed, you have no argument. In your response to this post, please say something of meaningful value.
Sally,
I think he's back. #1.76 - Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:59 PM EST
ciewywtb42mh6sps-23, Gun violence isn't a new story in Chicago this is old news,so put a cork in the fear and loathing $hit. I'm just trying to figure out why the President jumped on an anti-gun crusade only after the slaughter of innocent white children? ( Cue, Elvis',"In The Ghetto") And all the while the slain innocent, caught in some stupid a$$ crossfire, little boys and girls of color,are left unreckoned for in the streets of Chicago? Talk about the old west ciewy? You wanna go back to that time? Black folks were in shackles until a Republican named Lincoln free'd them. There was also a 6 shot revolver invented that was nicknamed,"Peacemaker". It's name came about because if you pulled your gun and I pulled mine only 1 of us was going home, typically both of us went home. Chicago's Democrat Machine patriarch Richard J Daley stiffened the gun laws in the city in the 60's,to keep us safe. There was a wallpaper hanger in Germany in the 30's, had the same idea! So you're saying that Chicago should allow ownership and carry to it's residents? The "residents" meaning the 980,000 that voted Obama,wink,wink? If so I'm so there with you because after all it's called a Peacemaker! Oh, and seriously which of "Dirty Harry's" victim's wouldn't you have shot, besides the pimp in the Cadillac Eldorado?
laztstrall ...(#1.50)..."As far as the bonehead who wants more taxes added so we can have more prisons... Why don't we just clear out the worthless trash we are storing forever in the jails we currently have?"
Ummm....Don't you read the papers, watch the news ???.....Judges all over the place are ordering convicts released due to overcrowding.....It ain't just Lindsay Lohan they don't have room for.....So, unless you have a better solution than my "More Jail Cells" or your brilliant " Kill them all" , Please post your home address so they can be released in your neighborhood....
And you called me a bonehead ????....Scheesh.....
RichardHarrow- i was you for Halloween, and it was awesome. You're right about the anarchist belief that laws will be broken regardless of penalty.
CreekDog- you have to be from Virginia or NC. I am the opposite, left with a touch of right; you are right with a touch of left. those from up north, out west, etc have no idea how this could happen. same thing with Duke/Carolina or Pepsi/Coke, most people from the southeast just pick a side for life.
Anyone that advocates stricter death penalty- what if you accidentally killed someone? say, your car blew a tire and you ran someone over. I'm pretty sure manslaughter would go up to death penalty in your Utopia. Also, picture a doctor prescribing an incorrect treatment that led to death. Kill him too? In the same breath, some people have said that would clear more room in jail for "lesser offenders". HOW IN THE FU IS THAT GOING TO HELP WITH OVERCROWDING? Also enjoy more of the current biggest problem in our jail system- POT SMOKERS in jail. Alcohol>>>>>pot in DIRECT CAUSE OF VIOLENCE/DEATH/ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION, however alcoholics are left to kill themselves and others while stoners have their bags of chips and South Park disrupted for drug raids. I have used both, and alcohol is the one that leads to the worst problems in my life...but the pot charges I got from semi-legal raids are keeping me from getting jobs that a DUI convict is eligible for. Ask any hiring manager, marijuana convictions are ten times worse than alcohol when it comes to being hired.
I propose we socialize internet access. It would make the Right happy because they could spy on us, while giving the Left a big blue boner because of free services. Also, the average criminal would probably stay at home watching porn or playing Call of Duty instead of committing crimes. I know this because I interviewed 100 inmates yesterday.
If every good man and woman of Chicago got well trained, and carried a sidearm, this would greatly slow down the violence.
All their gun laws have only disarmed the law abiding.
fenderbluesjr - Right on the money. Don't get why the press never calls him out.
Rocky - actually if you look into the statistics, you'll see that the rates of gun violence committed by law abiding citizens has been steadily DROPPING for decades.
However, for people that already have a criminal record, it's rising!
Law abiding citizens aren't the problem in Chicago. It's the criminal element.
And even THEN, gun deaths are down something like half from twenty years ago!
Why doesn't this fact get more press, do you suppose?
Hey Rahm.......PASS ANOTHER GUN LAW...THAT OUGHT TO DO IT....EH......LMAOROTHF..
DUMMIES !!!
Responsible parenting..yes but are we kidding ourselves when in order to get welfare THERE CANNOT BE A FATHER IN THE HOUSE...WAY TO GO LBJ. YOUR PLAN WORKED.
If the purpose of gun laws were to prevent crime, they obviously don't work at all. If the purpose of gun laws are to increase the relative power of an armed government over the people, they are working quite well.
Rahm is quietly thinking of a way not to let this crisis go to waste.
I was just surprised to see Rahm wanted to leave the comfort of Washington for the rough and tumble Chicago Politics. I just wonder if he is wishing he had stayed put.
Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever.
Care to elaborate on that richard? Better yet, prove it.
@richardharrow... I believe in law, I was a cop for 32-years. Criminals are criminals, meaning that don't obey the laws that are already in effect. More laws will NOT decriminalize them no matter what you're drinking. Legalizing marijuana will not lessen the drug crimes either. There will be criminals as long as there is life, words in print will never change that.
Sure.
1. Why create laws against rape when criminals are just going to break the laws?
2. Why create laws against stealing when criminals are just going to break the laws?
3. Why create laws against killing someone when criminals are just going to break the laws?
4. Why create DUI laws when criminals are just going to break the laws?
5. Why create laws against _______— when criminals are just going to break the laws?
"Why create stricter gun laws when criminals are just going to break the laws?"
Its just standard linear logic. I hope that helps.
Well, except for the people who's only drug crime was the marijuana.
I get the push to bring marijuana, and the cash srounding it, out of the black market, but I don't understand people thinking that pot is what's getting people shot. So yea, I don't see any large crime drop happening either.
I'll tell you what Mr. Logic, why don't you start or continue your liberal campaign to the judicial branch of the government. That seems to be the problem with laws and handling the criminals breaking those laws. As long as the entitlement, progressive movement, PC and "We can heal you, if you let us" thinking continues, laws will not mean crap. Go back to dreaming about your Utopia, cause it isn't the real world.
Your logic is flawed in that you are failing to use reality as a starting point.
Situation A) Thing X is legal, but is causing harm. We should pass a law making thing X illegal so that most people will stop doing it, and lock up the ones that break the law.
Situation B) Thing X is already illegal, so lets pass laws that create several other problems (to put it mildly) in some strange hope that thing X will happen less often, even when these laws have been shown not to accomplish this.
If we we're in situation A, you would be correct in your logic. Incase you haven't noticed, shooting people because you're upset with them has been illegal for a while now.
1. It's harm
2. It's harm
3. It's harm
4. It's a stupid law. More people die because of tired drtiverts than drunks. Reckles driving was already against the law, and the cause of that reckless driving shouldn't matter. I don't care whether you were drunk, texting, doing you make-up, eating, yelling at your kids in the backseat, falling asleep, or changing the radio station when you drive recklessly. They should all have the same penalty....because it's harm. BTW...more people are kiled by sober teens than drunk drivers, yet I don't see you trying to make getting a liscence until your 21 a law.
5. If it is harm or fraud there should ben o law against it. And I mean DIRECT harm. So prositution and drug use/sale should be legal. Only adult willing participants are harmed...and unwilling parties being harmed or defrauded are all that count as "direct harm" in law.
Logic is not your strong suit. It is usually the case for statists who advocate authority for authority's sake.
And for people who sell drugs in street gangs who all of sudden will be unable to do so when they are competing with major companies for the right to provide the weed to consumers on the market. Look at Pabst and Busch beer companies and then relate that to Prohibition of alcohol when the mafia ran the industry.
Again, crime rtates always drop when you legalize things that adults do as willing participants. For example, crime went up 24% the first year of Prohibition of alcohol...1920-1921. It went up 78% for the 13 years of the policy. Murder rates fell 40% in just one year, 1933, the year it ended.
5. If it is NOT harm or fraud there should be no law against it. And I mean DIRECT harm. So prositution and drug use/sale should be legal. Only adult willing participants are harmed...and unwilling parties being harmed or defrauded are all that count as "direct harm" in law.*
ProIndividual- They are all laws. You have no concept of logic. You simply stated what you think should and shouldn't be laws and went off on some tangent about harm. With a name like ProIndividual I can tell that you are an anarchist anyhow so just select "Ignore This Author" underneath my comment section. Go spray paint a bathroom or something
One of the bigger problems I have with legalizing pot is JumboCorp INC setting themselves up to 'own' different strains to keep others from growing it. I don't mind the gang, the corp, and the guy across the street all having to compete, but if we make it legal I want to be able to plant it next to my tomatoes and enjoy it after I have a BLT for lunch without haveing to pay the gov't.
I've said this for a while: what's the difference between prositution and porn? a camera and a contract.
I have a great conception of logic actually...so much so I don't follow any law just because it's a law. I use ethics, derived via logic, from espistemology and metaphsyics in philosophy to arrive at what is right and wrong.
They are all laws...so what? Some are good laws because they prohibit hamr and fraud against unwilling victims, are some are just statist BS rules made by peole not thinking it through very well. I follow the laws that concern the former. I don't drink and drive, not because it is illegal, but because it is a cause of reckless driving. I don't text when driving, or drive tired either. Logically, all of tose things are causes of eckless driving. The drunk driving laws are unnecessary, as are the tyrannical checkpoints they set up while geographically profiling innocent drivers, and pulling them over for checks without any probable cause or suspicion in violation of our Constitutional limits on search and seizure (which is largely ignored immorally today - and which is a natural unalienable individual right).
Most laws are totally illogical. What you call a tangent was actually a logical point - that something being a law doesn't make it right, not does it make it anymore effective at solving problems. If it is not a law prohibiting only direct harm and fraud against unwilling victims then it is an unjust law.
You might want to read a bit more about philosophy before telling me about logic.
And if I am, or am not, an anarchist is irrelevant. That's an argumentum ad hominem...attacking the debater and not the debate issues...and informal logical fallacy.
haha richard,talk about laws that were created to PROTECT US and lump in why create laws while negating the fact that chicago ALREADY has strict gun laws. You working for the rwnjs' as you call them. laws are in place now,how are ADDING new laws for the SAME thing going to change things? you my liberal american are the one with NO LOGIC! shame on you
Agreed.
True...and only a written contract, because illegal prostitution has a verbal contract implied :)
He provided an opinion of what the law should (in his opinion) be, and a valid explanation of why he feels that way.
You are acting as if laws are written in stone and should never be changed, only increased endlessly, regardless of effetivness, for...what was your reason for that exactly?
I think it's clear who doing more thinking here.
And to make matters worse, emotionaly reactionary, which causes difficulty in fixing them. It starts like this.
Richard,
The problem with your argument is that it is naive! There are already a ton of gun laws prohibiting the behavior we have seen in these shootings. One more law will not make a difference if the other ones have not. Now if there were no gun laws on the books it may be a different story, but murder and armed assault are crimes in all 50 states already. Further, it is already a crime to own an unregistered firearm in Chicago and it is also still a crime to carry a gun in Chicago without a permit. Despite the recent court action there is still no concealed carry law in the city.
Sarcbastard- You sure shouldn't be one for sticking up for logic. What it should be? OMG How can we discuss laws if people are talking about laws made up in their head? Try again. NM. Stop trying
Ever since 9/11 the US has created more laws to reduce freedom, militarized the police force with swat team that look ready for the worst fight in Afghanistan driving around in armoured cars that can take a Russian RPG, drone over you back yard without a court order, getting fondled by a bunch airport security guards AND let's not for get homeland security training to lock up anybody that doesn't agree with them.
Is America safer now? I don't think so. The whole system is ass backwards.
Jail for the criminals, great when you are out of work. A free ticket for free health care, not payng taxes, free food, free roof over your head and a nice place for building your status among the criminals and a good resume for when you come out.
As far as giving them proper justice let's not go there because it will never happen. To many bleeding hearts out there.
Richard Harrow,
Well aren't you an enigma? You talk about gun control while using the name Richard Harrow and the very handsome John Huston's picture...yet the character Richard Harrow from Board Walk Empire is a war sniper that does not have any issue with killing anyone, even children.
You have serious confliction issues guy, either that or you are paid government shill. I'm leaning towards shill.
Why are you guys feeding the troll? He has been going to every thread posting the same b.s. and thinking that he is actually posting what gun advocates believe. Just ignore him and he'll crawl back into his whole.
RichardHarrow,
How's this for logic:
1. It's already illegal to posses a gun in Chicago.
2. It's already illegal for someone to buy a gun from another state and transport it to Chicago.
3. Neither of the above two laws have stopped criminals from having guns in Chicago
Therefore,
4. More laws covering the same thing will not stop criminals from having guns in Chicago.
I think that's logically sound, right?
RichardHarrow-see the above post^ and you will find the lackluster of logic in your flawed argument. And quit saying the same damn line over and over; your conjecture is void of reason and logic, you have no argument whatsoever.
noneoftheabovein08 LMAO! He is my favorite character and that is one of my favorite shows. Got that "character". I believe in the 2nd amendment and I will fight to the death (with my apple peeler) before the Government takes away your guns. I just dont feel that soccer moms should have a military arsenal in their house for unstable people like Adam Lanza to be able to use to kill a ton of children.
cubasteve58001 look up! The argument is that we need new/stricter laws. I don't think that you should be able to buy military weapons Steve. It's about new laws not covering the same thing. Laws against driving drunk has not stopped people from breaking that law either. Do you think that we should just accept that everything is as good as it is gonna get and never try to improve? Should we use the fact that criminals are going to break the laws be our "go-to" when trying to improve our society. Maybe if you have a victim mentality. Anyhow, new laws covering different things can prevent mass murders. You might have logic but you still make no sense.
Here's one more time for you Scrooge:
Those who oppose stricter gun laws based on the idea that "criminals will break the laws" are people that do not believe in laws whatsoever
You can't buy military weapons now. So I don't know why you're complaining about that.
Let me ask you something, do you think making a second law that says drunk driving is illegal will do anything to decrease drunk driving?
richardharrow
Repeating it doesn't make it any less idiotic. Laws are intended to punish, period. There is no evidence to support the notion that they change behavior in any meaningful way. Good people wouldn't commit murder if there was no law against it.
RichardHarrow, good luck with you apple peeler, you don't stand a chance. We all understand that you believe more gun laws will reduce gun violence but you have repeatedly failed at every attempt to explain HOW more gun laws will reduce gun violence; you're jumping from point A to point Z, just saying random things. Try this simple argument: stepping on a crack WILL break your mother's back. Does that make any sense? Maybe, but certainly not without explaining the logic of how you got from A to Z. And don't get me wrong here, I don't need you to explain it, I just want you to so that I can pick your "logic" apart piece by piece and show you the fault in your reasoning. If you can explain to me how more gun control will reduce violence without arriving at the conclusion that every gun in the world, or at least the western hemisphere (that's North and South America) must be confiscated and destroyed and the production of all guns must cease all while preserving the intent of the 2nd Amendment then I will advocate for gun control, but since that is not possible then I suppose it is also not possible for me to be an advocate for gun control. But PLEASE explain your logic to me...and I will begin tearing it apart.
It's obvious that the hefty gun control in Chicago is working wonderfully. If there were no gun control there then everyone who lives there would be dead.....
That must be the case because if it isn't then gun control there isn't working worth @!$%#....
With over 20,000,000 illegals in the United States--over 1,400,000 households are getting benifits--many rapist--perverts in the group
"Illegal" immigrants commit crimes at a 5 times lower rate than natives. As a libertarian I cannot, for the life of me, understand how conseravtives don't see their hypocrisy on immigration. You claim to be for free markets, but then want closed borders (which destroy any chance at a free market in labor). Don't you notice unions want closed borders too? They don't want the labor competition. Also, conservatives supposedly agree with libertarians about unalienable ("not subject to border or law; not transferable or separable") individual rights. But you apply it to commerce and guns, but not trial rights, search and seizure rights, privacy rights, due process (like not being tortured), and NOT movement (immigration).
The only limits on immigration in a free market are on criminals (including terrorists) and those with pandemic diseases. That's also the only way to uphold unalienable individual rights.
The inconsistencies of both liberals and conservatives make no sense. One hates freedom in social issues and immigration, the other hates freedom in guns and fiscal issues. What's worse...some in both camps aren't even consistent about that (some libs want closed borders, some neocons want highly regulated and taxed markets). If both sides really sat down and thought about their ideology long enough to make it a consistent philosophy, we'd all be libertarians.
Where did you come up with that? One out of three crimes are committed by illegals!
No they aren't. You need to read more studies and listen to less nonsense talk radio shows.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_ImmigrantsCrimeJTF.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052601200.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html
AND:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717575,00.html
I suggest watching Jason Riley over at Cato, who is also a weekly guest on Fox's Sunday shows:
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-video/jason-riley-assails-myths-immigration
You don't need to be left-wing to support immigration. Afterall, it is free market to have free trade in labor, and the opposite position is anti-free market by definition. It also supports unalienable rights, whereas closed borders trample them.
I'd also add: you need to remember that non-whites recieve longer sentences for the same crimes than whites on average, and for no good explainable reason. So when looking at only populations in prison you get a skewed view of the issue. Even if 1/3 of prisoners were 1st generation immigrants (which they aren't), that wouldn't mean they commited 1/3 of the crime or were 1/3 of the arrests, logically.
That is because you apparently don't understand the difference between economic systems and sovereign nations. The free market is a part of the capitalist economic system. If you don't have a free market, you still have some other form of economy. Borders are part of sovereign nations. If you don't have a border, you don't have a nation.
No I understand them clearly. Borders don't really matter in economics. The only reason they are considered at all is for measurement purposes. They are just imaginary lines on maps in terms of economics. And market socialists also argue for free markets...you do know that right? Borders being apart of sovereign nations doesn't change the economic relationships. Economics is just a social science meant to try and understand the trade relationships between people...and every nation is made up of people. Only state violence (or threat of violence) can be used to subdue people trading across national borders. Afterall, govts don't create any profits, people do.
The best way to start a war is to limit trade across national borders. And Bastiat's assertion that "trade deficits" (current account balances) were not causal to economics woes, but instead a symptom of a rich economy, was proven with data by Milton Friedman decades ago. Those who dispute that and continue to claim trade deficits CAUSE harm to an economy have an agenda and are being sophistic. They aren't causal to anything. They are CAUSED BY an economic boom. After every economic boom there is an increase in the trade deficit (or a decrease in the trade surplus). Trade restictions have continuously harmed economies. It is estimated in multiple credible studies, with little exception, that world GDP would be 50-150% larger (100% would mean doubled) if all trade restrictions were lifted.
And unilateral free trade benefits those who do it. David Ricardo discovered this in the 19th century via his principle of comparative advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
You don't need to have reciprocal or balanced trade to benefit from not restricting your citizens from trading freely with other nations' citizens. Besides...you are trampling property rights to place such restrictions upon your citizens. If you are on the left, you are making your peope poorer...if you are on the right, you are destroying property rights principles. In either case, you are being inconsistent.
And none of this means you have no borders for national defense or limiting criminals or diseased people into your nation...so your argument was horrible.
Oh, and the Founders had no immigration restrictions on the books. In fact, until the 20th Century the only real restrictions were on the Chinese...and that was based in racist beliefs. The Founders and Framers may have had people on both sides of the issue, but reason ultimately prevailed over xenophobia, and there were no laws made about immigration (except the Chinese) until the 1900s...and the Chinese immigration restrictions were not during the early decades of the Republic.
The current immigrations waves are smaller per capita than past waves as well. We had more per capita immigrants here when the Irish and Italian came than we do now, by far. The Itialians were the most low skilled and illiterate immigrants in history. It turned it our fine though. In fact, just as today, wages grew for natives after those waves. During the biggest waves of Mexican immigrants, native wages grew 2%, they didn't fall despite economic fallacies that more labor produces a supply excess that shrinks native wages. That has NEVER occured. There is no correlation between immigrants and native wage declines accounted for inflation. The reason is a commonly understood economic principle ("supply creates its own demand"). In other words, those immigrants do add to supply ofl abor, but also create more demand in the economy because they buy stuff. It is a well known economic fact that immigration is conducive to economc growth, not the other way around.
So historically, in terms of economic efficacy, and in terms of rights, immigration is good.
If that were true, there would be no such thing as tariffs.
Apparently we are not too far apart. Since people who cross the border illegally are, by definition, criminals, you appear to agree with me that the borders should exist and be closed to them.
Legal immigration is good to a point where you are allowing in those immigrants who have gone thru the process of entering this country legally, Swearing allegiance to this country and are intent on making this country their home a home where they integrate with society and conform to the norms of our country and not try to make this country like their home country, Where these people have a skillset that is needed to fill a niche that is not available in this country, These people who save their money and legally bring their families to this country and not those who are sending their money back to their families in another country, Gone are the times when there was a need to try to use immigrating populations to populate the country. We already have enough people here already, We do not need the criminal element from other countries we have enough of our own.
@ProIndividual..."No I understand them clearly. Borders don't really matter in economics. The only reason they are considered at all is for measurement purposes. They are just imaginary lines on maps in terms of economics." Then, I suppose, there is no difference between the US Dollar, the Mexican Peso and the Martian Stupido??? If the conflict regarding Illegal Immigration involved only the Economic side of the issue, I guess the more illegals we allow the richer our country becomes??? Your Logic is sheer idiocy.
And they wreck economies...hence all major mainstream and fringe economists are against them. Look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts, and look up the Embargo Act of 1803...both halved our GDP.
And you are confusing statist violence against property rights of natives via tariffs for economists and how they measure things. The economists do not impose violence, the states of the world do. The BORDERS do not matter to economics...the TARIFFS do. Tariffs aren't borders, logically. Tariffs are tyranny on your own populace though...well, unless you're one of the cronies of the state that benefits from the unsustainable economic changes caused by them. As soon as the protectionism ends, those businesses fall apart...because then they are subject to the market competition that drives down prices, drives up quality of service/good, and drives up accountability of producers. Tariffs make the consumers of your natin poorer by making them pay more for domestic products instead of foreign ones for less. The choice should be the consumers. And the tariffs don't provide any border security...so they aren't relevant to borders exsiting.
No they are not criminals (unless you consider anyone who breaks any law a criminal; I don't - the runaway slave was not a criminal, the slave master was a criminal with protection of the law). The immigration law is unjust and tyrannical, not to mention economically stupid. Again, unalienable means literally "not separable, transferable, and not subject to law or border". The founders and Framers believed in natural negative unlaienable individual rights. They didn't need to, nor intend to, list them all in the Bill of Rights. They are not gotten via citizenship and are not granted by the state (nor can they justly be regulated or banned by the state). They are rights of all individual humans. This isn't debatable in terms of original intent. They'd be mostly ashamed of our anti-free market and anti-unalienable rights stands on immigration.
The default is that you have the right to movement. Unless you are harmful to others, there is no rightful just reason to stop your movement. There is no harm in helping the economy grow (and that includes the fact that total employment and wages grow with immigration influxes). Only in recessions does unemployment go up, and that isn't caused by immigration, although it is ignorantly blamed for it. It's just foolish scapegoatism. The only just reasons to limit immigrants from coming somewhere are because they are criminals (a word that for centuries meant "directly harmful to others") or highly contagious with a pandemic disease. By "criminal" you should take it to mean "violent, or a thief, vandal, or fraudster".
The idea that such silly laws should be in palce is ridiculous. Do you realize it takes 131 years on average for a 30 years old Mexican with a High School diploma and a sibling in the USA to get in here legally?
See the chart here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in_2.html
Who in the heck would wait 131 years on average to move? That's why so many of them are here "illegally"...a stupid law that shouldn't be in place. The market should determine supply and demand in labor markets...and it does, law or no law. You can't subvert markets...you just create black markets. If no direct harms are there, no law should be there. Let them in legally and they can be more eaily regulated. It benefits us economically and in terms of upholding rights.
The law is wrong...read what I wrote to the last guy. Disobeying tyrannical laws is called Civil Disobedience (and American tradition). Or as Jefferson's motto on his Seal said:
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
That was the originally proposed motto for the Seal of the United States...but was rejected because the new political class liked rebellion just fine when they were the rebels, but not so much otherwise...lol. Jefferson was more consistent than the rest. (although not perfect at all).
Lostin...ESPECIALLY The illegals who were brought in to AMERIKA to "vote" for the bast*rd POS Pretender-in-Chief and to get free healthcare, education. homes, food stamps, and essentially suckle at Blowbama's teat, all for the almighty vote. Thanks for caring about your country before all else, Jokebama. You unqualified, arrogant a$$hole....
You're arguing from ignorance and don't realize it. Clearly our immigration levels have decreased in the recession...look it up. When we were booming more immigrants came here. So YES, the richer a nation the more immigrants. Also, for the 2nd or 3rd time, it is an economic fact that immigration is CONDUCIVE to economic growth, not harmful. Logically, if you artificially limit immigration via state regulaton of the labor markets you shrink the economy (or slow its growth).
So YES...the more immigrants the richer the nation (provided the state doesn't do the stupid opposite policy and subsidize immigration by paying for their moving fees, or flying them in on the state's tab). They drive down the price of products you buy, which makes you relatively wealthier. Employment therefore increases because you have extra expendable income which drives demand. This is Econ 101. There are two ways to get richer: You get paid more accounted for inflation or prices of things you guy go down.
And if you want to complain about the welfare state I'd remind you that is an argument against those programs, not immigration. All you need to do is either end tose programs or make a simple law to keep immigrants from getting them for X years, or until they become citizens. It's been done in other countries to great success.
I'm sorry you don't know much about economics, but that isn't my flaw to fix for you. Stop looking for excuses for your xenophobia. Stop forming string opinions from ignorance. If you are ignorant (as we all are about something) that is fine...but it is not fine to form strong opinions based on that ignorance. Just admit your ignorance and don't have a strong opinion on the issue, or educate yourself.
BTW...outsourcing is also known as "taking the job to the immigrant". Did you think we moved so many jobs overseas where no American can any longer compete for them for no real reason? Partly to blame was the inability to let immigrant labor in here, where Americans could at least still compete for those jobs by neing ore productive than non-Ebglish speaking, low-skilled 9or no-skilled) immigrant laborers. If you hate outsourcing then I suggest you start letting the workers come here so our companies don't have to move halfway acorss the world to get access to that labor. When they do move, like to China, it is unlikely they will come back because the difference in labor costs is so large. But if you let say Mexican in, the cost to move is no longer economical for them given the relatively cheaper labor they can get without moving.
Again, this comes down to comparative advantage somewhat.
Nice misdirection. If you want to change the argument from whether borders are justified to whether tariffs are justified, lets start over.
Another nice misdirection. By definition, anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. That does not mean all laws are just. And comparing runaway slaves to illegal immigrants is disingenuous. If I want to hold you in my house against your will, I am wrong. If you want to come into my house uninvited, you are wrong.
I know your opinion. Do you have any proof?
The only unalienable rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence, which never mentions borders. If the Constitution were meant to apply to everyone, then Somalians would have the right to vote for Presidential electors. I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers intended
By that logic, I have the right to come into your house unannounced so long as my intentions are good. That is, unless you make a distinction between a house that belongs to "you the individual" and a country that belongs to "we the people."
If I believe that, you still need to prove that there is causation, and not just correlation. Ice cream consumption and deaths by drowning both increase in summer months. Does that mean people who eat ice cream are more likely to drown?
I have to disagree with Pro a bit here. I agree that our immigration policy is stupid enough to keep me from thinking of an adequate adjective. It needs changed like a baby that ate tacos.
However we do need to have an immigration policy, and it does need enforced, and we do need to address how we look at citizenship.
Also, I wonder what both of you think of how much this effects the gap in the standard of living between US/Mexico/China/etc? On one hand people getting paid enough to live 5-in-a-hut may be happy not to have to live 8-in-a-hut anymore and drag the standard down. On the other, seeing the whole 2.5bedroom with a yard deal might cause people to demand that of their own countries. Thoughts?
As the daughter of (my Mothers family is from Greece and immigrated in the 40's. In fact my Grandfather joined the Army and fought for the United States during WWII. Which did not earn him his citizenship, he and my Grandmother and their kids applied for it on their own.) and the best friend of (From India, she's in the process of obtaining her American Citizenship.)LEGAL immigrants...YOU'RE full of crap. Our immigration laws work just fine.
All ILLEGAL aliens are lawbreaking criminals, 100% of them.
Typical gang mentality.
Laws don't apply to the lawless.
Or the president!!!
So stop creating laws?
You have it richardharrow there is enough State and federal laws. The big one is thou shall not kill. That says it all.
BINGO richardharrow! There may be some hope for you, unless you're just being a sarcastic prick.
I'm all for a moratorium on new laws! No new laws without repealing two old ones. Maybe, just maybe, then there would be some hope for actual enforcement. Less of Obamas and the powerful elite picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. LESS IS MORE!!! when it comes to common sense lawmaking.
That is a commandment, not a law. There are various LAWS against homicide. Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Murder 1, Murder 2. etc. Laws change as we see fit.
So stop creating laws?
richard-how about ENFORCEMENT not redundance? please cue me in to this law YOU are thinking about that would not be adding to another law that we already have.we already have enough gun laws now and another one will do what? And those things you mention,murder 1,2 and involuntary, those are definitions for prosecution,not laws. nad here i thought you could make a POINT! how wrong am i?
Let's start with STRICTER enforcement of the laws already on the books...tough sentences for gun crimes; no plea bargains, no early parole; bring back hard labor.
Too many "bangers" go to prison and basically learn to be better bangers; in fact, many gangs see a prison term as a badge of honor. We need to make prison far more intimidating.
Richard,
I've read a few of your posts. You're an arrogant kinda guy aren't you? My way or the highway kinda guy huh!?...
You are calling people names, and saying they have no concept/have no idea what they're talking about etc.. If you're going to write things like that, then shut your pie hole dude.
Criminals are criminals because they "BREAK" the F'n laws so WTF will tougher laws do? Pffft.
Laws are meant to be broken. Get over it.
Have a nice day...
Creek- Making it tougher to get guns will make it tougher for criminals to get their hands on guns. Also the huge "magazines" that school shooters typically get their hands on would diminish. Laws are meant to be upheld. I am sorry that you feel that way about laws. As for your sarcastic "Have a nice day" I say, "Good Riddance"
again richard,you will not "make it tougher" for a criminal to get guns! how about demanding ENFORCEMENT of the LAWS on the books? noone here is saying ABOLISH laws,we are saying a FEEL GOOD law will do NOTHING! 9 shot in chitown AND no large capacity magazines? no SCARY AR15's,no semi-auto rifles? how would BANNING any of these change ANY of this? Please use that logical thinking you're always talking about!
Look as long as there's a black market there will always be a way to get whatever guns, magazine sizes, and ammunition you want. Putting stricter laws on the books will only put more money in the black markets wallet and the government will have no way of tracking who has what until some criminal makes the mistake of breaking into the wrong house. I own three "Assault Rifles" and never shot anyone with them, My mag sizes range from 10 rounds to 40, I even have a 75 round drum. All my stuff was purchased legally BUT if the government tries passing some halfa$$ law restricting my access to the guns I want then I along with many millions of others will become customers of the black market. Now what the stooges in DC and all their liberal lefty allies need to decide is would they be willing to give up their lives to take peoples guns away?? Because I assure you I'm prepared to take theirs if they try to take what's mine.
RichardHarrow #4.2 So stop creating laws? No one said stop creating laws; we said stop creating poinless costly laws that are unenforcable and do nothing to solve the problem #4.5 That is a commandment, not a law. There are various LAWS against homicide. Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Murder 1, Murder 2. etc. Laws change as we see fit. It is God's law as well as His commandment; it is also mans law but if it were not that does not mean it isn't law, it only means that Man cannot punish you for it. Murder 1, 2, etc. are not laws, they are degrees of Earthly charges for break the law which is thou shall not kill #4.10 Creek- Making it tougher to get guns will make it tougher for criminals to get their hands on guns. Also the huge "magazines" that school shooters typically get their hands on would diminish. Laws are meant to be upheld. I am sorry that you feel that way about laws. As for your sarcastic "Have a nice day" I say, "Good Riddance". I say to you again, simply stating that increased gun control will make it tougher for criminals to get guns does not make it so, but thats not even what you said; basically all you said in #4.10 is making it tougher to gets guns will make it tougher to get guns, how can one argue with that? It's like saying turning my computer on will turn my computer on...well DUH! However, making it tougher to get guns will only make it tougher to get guns for those who acquire them legally so by adding more gun control all you will effectivley be doing is encouraging current law abiding citizens, who purchase and own guns legally, to acquire guns illegally that by today's standards would be legal. Try again when you are able to institute logic in your "reasoning".
If they don't help then yeah. Few things breed contempt for the law or government faster than laws that don't work, you know won't be obeyed by large numbers people from the start, can't be enforced or have no bite. It's just plain stupid to pass them.
Thank God Chicago has strict gun laws...oops thats not working!
depends on what perspective you are looking at it.
You mean from the perspective that the gang bangers are killing each other...yes but they are killing innocent civilians too, Many of these liberal cities have areas where even armed law enforcement officers fear to enter and yet they expect the law abiding citizens to live there unprotected.
It's a bright day when chicago takes out some of the trash.
Chicago, The Liberal Democratic vision for America.
Is this really what we want our whole country to be like?
Only in the sick, demented minds of Blowbama and Rahmtard.......Mein Kamph!
The reason for the gun violence and the gang violence is a direct result of the Drug Trade. You eliminate the Drug Trade, you eliminate 80% of the inner city gang violence. The inner city kids fight over the right to sell drugs to the people in the suburbs who go into the city to buy their drugs. End of strory. You eliminate the Drug Trade, end the violence. Unfortunately, not all of it because these gangs that were developed for and by the Drug Trade, will still be there and now desperate to find a new money making scheme. Our society creates these monster with our flawed policies, and then wonder why they are there. endprohibitionnow.net
Ban automatic weapons and high capacity mags.
I guess the only option is to legalize drugs.
But Bear, if we were to crack down on the drug trade, then we would be cracking down on Illegals, an important voting block for the President.....gee guess that's not going to happen..... Too bad legal Americans are not as important as Illegals.
G-morning takenaka,
You can ban high capacity mags but, I can change out a mag in less than a second.
I can carry 10, 10 count mags (labeled as low capacity) in separate pockets and basically have a 100 count mag by switching them out in .07 seconds a piece. The time it takes to aim and fire one off in another direction if necessary.
Automatic weapons are already restricted, NJ has an Assault Weapons ban, Included in it are many 22 caliber tube fed plinking target rifles, NJ also has high crime rates in their liberal Democratically controlled cities of Camden,Trenton & Newark, Your gun laws do not work and your liberal policies do not work, Must have something to do with the people living in these cities not working.
I bet it didn't take a so called "high capacity" mag to put one bullet into that kid sitting in the car in the article.
Besides, if a gun, like say the Glock 17 was designed to hold 17 rounds, that is standard capacity, not "high".
The only thing high around here is the liberals.
You are correct....but you can't eliminate the Drug Trade (hence it still exists in a Drug War). But you can eliminate the Drug War. That, afterall, causes 40-70% of all murder in the USA, and when we ended alcohol Prohibition in 1933 we saw a 40% decline in the murder rate in one year. If you legalize the Drug Trade then sociopathic murderous gangs don't run it. When is the last time Busch beer employees (or drinkers) shot up a Pabst beer factory?
Some of these KIDS aren't even old enough to have rights!
I agree with bob 1/28, let our troops decend on the streets and neighborhoods and flush out the GUNS. Door to door, take away the guns of the children and young adults.
ProIndividual, It is naive to think that these murders are only caused by the drug trade, When you have people shooting other people because they "dissed" them or looked at them funny or said hello to their girlfriend or wore the wrong color hat or shirt on their turf, The violence in the cities is directly related to the lack of societal norms and family values, If there were no drugs these individuals would still use violence, The would still be shooting and killing but instead they would be doing it for other things, The Cartels in Mexico have widened their range of illigitimate business from drugs to extortion to kidnapping to human trafficing to counterfeiting of legal drugs and currency to conterfeit music CD's and Movie DVD's. Legalizing hard drugs will only result in more addicts which will result in more crime, Addicts commit crimes to get money to buy drugs and it will not matter if they are buying their drugs legally or illegally.
Last time i checked all humans (let alone other living things) have rights...lol.
That's illegal. Read the Constitution and subsequent laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Besides, you are suggesting Martial Law be declared...total tyranny. Door to door stuff like that would cause murder rates to skyrocket. Cops, soldiers, and citizens would be killed in the resistance to such overreactions.
Try expanding rights by ending the Drug War (the actual failled policy which is the cause of the majority of the problem here) instead of limiting or trampling rights via Martial Law.
If you want to save lives, DO NOT do what you just suggested.
It's not naive...that's the facts. 70% of all murders are by criminals who already had no right to a gn BEFORE the murder. About 3/4 of them are drug criminals. That's about 50% of all murder directly related to the drug trade right there...or rather directly caused by the War on Drugs, because those people wouldn't be fihgting over those drug trades if it were legal like alcohol. Again, Busch isn't killing Pabst. And another 20% of murder are indirectly linked to the drug trade...gang members who kill over turf and kill innocents. Those gangs, again, wouldn't largely exist without the illegal drug trade to fund them.
Wake up. You're the naive one if you don't recognize 40-70% of murder is related to the War on Drugs. In every nation that decriminalized, murder rates fell. In every case in Prohibition of aclohol it rose when illegal, and fell when legal. In 1920-21, the 1st year of Prohibition, the crime rates rose 24% in one year, and 78% over the course of the 13 year policy mistake. In 1933, when the policy was ended, the murder rate alone fell 40% in 12 months.
BTW...family values you say...well it seems 23 million kids are in single parent families but only 2 million people are in prison. Of the 2 million, roughly 1 million are nonviolent "criminals" (only there because of the Drug War, not because they harmed anyone). Of the 1 million in prison, sure, 85% are from single parent families. But that means there is a 23 to 1 ratio there...not anywhere near a correlation or causality. If 23 kids are in single parent families but only 1 ends up in prison that is not a strong correlation. Plus, that 1 million in jail are cumulative...because the same rapist and murderer will be there last year, this year, and next year. The 23 million kids are EVERY YEAR. So the problem is even lower than it appears.
There is no correlation between proliferation of guns, high capacity magazines, "assault" rilfes, permits to carry guns, violent and sexualized video games, TV, movies, single parenthood etc., and violent crime, crime, murder, or suicide rates. While all of those things have been proliferated to historic highs, the murder and crime rates have fallen 49% simultaneously (the last 20 years, and they have fallen 20% over the last decade).
The correlation is clear: The Drug War. It is the most corollary thing...and thertefore likely the cause of most of the problem.
You can censore media like video games, TV or movies. You can try and ban divorce. You can get "assault" rifles and high capacity magazines banned. None of that will have a marked effect on violent crime or murder rates. (Rifles are used in less than 2% of all murdersi n the USA). If you end the DRug War you will save half of the lives lost to murder.
So what is your agenda? Saving lives? Or imposing more tyranny that fit your misconceptions about reality on society? I know what you want to blame...but the stats show you are wrong. Just because it fits your pre-established beliefs doens't make it right.
Look for evidence, and then form opinions...don't form opinions and then look for evidence to support them.
PS. Most drug users are not addicts, and most addicts commit no crimes (only the minority of them commit crimes and end up in jails). It's the dealers fighting over turf that are commiting most of the crimes (they can't settle disputes in courts, so they murder each other....violence is the only dispute resolution on the streets when courts are not involved as an alternative). Nations that have decriminalized or legalized drugs have had slight upticks in use (in some cases, decreases in use), but decreases in addiction (due to uniform dosages when regulated companies sell the stuff). When Drug Wars are ended crime decreases...and child use and addiction plummet. This was the same experience with aclohol Prohibition.
So is this about helping society or your ideology? Decide.
OH...and those Cartels you're talking about are purely creations of the War on Drugs here and in Mexico. So that doesn't help your argument either.
Pro...If the US stopped the War on Drugs, made all drugs legal, and stood by doing nothing YOU think the Drug related Shootings and Murders would cease to exist , right?? Tell me.....Who then supplies the ever increasing demand for Drugs in this Country??? ANSWER: The same thugs that are supplying NOW......And probably MORE competitively , i.e. VICIOUSLY!!! Yeh...stop the war on Drugs.....ROFLMAO at your naivete'!!!
The Extreme Right is really out today. 9 SHOT with GUNS. You have got a lot of nerves to try and make this a selling point to get rid of gun laws. A bunch of Anarchists with Big Mouths.
Not THINK; know. It's what history shows, and study after study shows. Look up Prohibition before, during, and after alcohol legalization. Look up every nation who ended their Drug Wars, either in part or in total.
Who supplies alcohol, cigarettes, and bananas? A reputable business, that's who.
I don't think you want to consider the solution even if it saves lives because it doesn't fit your nonsense, propaganda laced, pre-established beliefs.
Your ignorance and naivete' is at issue here, not mine.
Dick, er, I mean Richard...how about the Libtard kneejerk (and I emphasize the word JERK) reactionists who politicize every event? Remember what Rahmtard said..."Never let a good crisis go to waste..." The DUMBocrats are a bunch of Anti-rights blowhards with no brains in their skulls. Your b*stard "messiah" will never stop. You pass a law outlawing high caliber guns, and that only leads to a total outlawing of firearms of any kind, and the forcible removal of said guns from law-abiding citizens. Do you remember what Adolph Hitler said back in 1939? "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizenry..." That is the road this sh*thole country is on, thanks to our Socialist Marxist Muslim POS Pretender-in-Chief...KMA.
1. Anarchists are usually leftists, not right wingers...even in America. BTW...it's a philosophy that mostly only advocates the use of violence in self defense. More dentists have killed people in the last 100 years than anarchists.
2. They were shot where there is strict gun laws, and where there is a major Drug War being waged, which has resulted in hundreds of different drug gangs in just one city.
3. Thanks for insulting us and never addressing any of our points logically...statist.
I've got an idea! According to your logic, We can eliminate laws on drugs, and increase the laws on guns. (Since the criminals follow them religiously.)[Dumb-ass]
You are making no sense. I clearly have argued against new drug laws, and have argued repealing the existing ones becausen ot onlty aren't they followed, but they are causing more crime, not less. I also have argued against new gun laws. You need to read what I write and quit being a dogmatic person.
And the OP is right, BTW.
#10.11 - Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:35 AM MST
1. You are a right wing anarchist with evidence above. So I am not sure why you are even debating your own existence.
2. It's not even in the top 5 for states with strictest gun laws. All you know is that The President is from Chicago.
3. You have no point to argue Anarchist. 9 people were SHOT! With GUNS! Can you guys not read the article??? It's right there in the title!!!
4. "BlowBama" has screws loose for sure.
richard-noone is advocating REMOVING gun laws,you have no REAL argument do you lib? it's funny how you liberals have no REAL solution but you want to ban,ban,ban a gun that is only used in 1% of crimes. You must think adam lanza had that AR15 too,first reports were that the cops found it in his car. But that doesn't fit,does it? and all you can do is spew names? where are your ideas,oh those SCARY LOOKING guns huh? 9 dead and not ONE SCARY gun or large capacity magazine? you are wrong on everything!
Ok, Richard,
We'll just make sure the next 9 guys stay at your house next time so you can help protect their drugs and gang turf OK?!
This way they will not be shot. Right?! Isn't that what you want?!
So, just post your address and invite them all to your house where they'll be protected by your wonderful tougher law ideas...MmmmmHmmm ;-)
As the heading says "The reason for the gun violence and the gang violence is a direct result of the Drug Trade. You eliminate the Drug Trade, you eliminate 80% of the inner city gang violence. The inner city kids fight over the right to sell drugs to the people in the suburbs who go into the city to buy their drugs. End of story"
How about we just ban the inner city kids and problems start getting solved? Think of all the time, manpower, money that is spent on them. Imagine what could be accomplished without them.
richardharrow, You sir are an idiot, period. typical far left lib. your arguments make no sense and if you look at the history of your illogical stance its plain to see that they don't work. You people want to pass more laws against honest Americans that you already know that the criminal or nut case won't follow. What it boils down to is you lib.'s just want every one but you dis-armed so that no one can disagree with you or you will shoot us, dose that about cover your America?
Gun no permit= LIFE
Apparently that equation is in error.....
Is Chicago part of the mid-west or middle east...I'm confused.
Well, those of us who live in the mid-west don't want to include them here......
Just to think - those druggie-gang bangers used to be someones precious little baby, until
the parents stopped parenting.
They never started parenting. The were govt subsidized breeders...
End the Drug War, end the problem. We seemed to have regressed mentally in national policy since the 1933 end of Prohibition of alcohol.
BS John 528, and Kent Salmen!
You ASSUME that these kids don't have parents, or that their parents are gaming the system. I don't doubt that they might receive some subsidies, but let me clue you, MOM is WORKING--trying to raise her family and holding down at least one full time job. She doesn't have a car, can't afford one, so takes 1-2 buses or the like to get to her job.
Your ignorant comments are part of the problem, hope you feel proud of yourselves.
I have a better idea, Execute drug dealers.
You are a really tuff guy aren't you LostinTheBarrens with all your squakin. I bet you are a Chicken Hawk.
Dickturd...and you are a piece-of-sh*t Libtard BLOWHARD. You spew and spew your feckless rabble and say absolutely NOTHING. See, we can all play that game, numbn*ts...
LMAO! How about an original thought for once you brainless troll. That's all you got? Your life is a cliche'.
why not? they execute drug dealers in other countries.............the thing is they kill each other on a regular basis, so theatening them with jail time does not work. its a serious poblem , with many viable solutions, and the government is not really helping. but more gun control laws will not fix this problem
Maybe guns should be taken away from Minorities only, because it seems to me they are the ones who use guns the most to commit crimes.
@Kilroy-We are exceptional.
@Tarzan-Bad Tarzan, Bad!
That's not only a dumber idea, it's a more anti-freedom idea. That's just what this country needs, to mirror laws in Communist nations.
BTW...what right do you have, ethically, to stop willing adults from buying and selling drugs if it is done peacefuly? The answer is NONE.
I really hate statists.
I really hate fools who think that legalizing drugs that destroy the lives of the addicted user, the users family and friends and just about everyone else the user addict comes into contact with will eliminate the problem.
My ethical right is the right to stop these peddlers of death from pushing their death of addiction on the children of our world.
Drug dealers are murderers, Some cause instant death and some cause long term death but the result is the same.
ewww...Richardharrow, You sure told me, coming from a person hiding behind a stole avatar I really care what you think, How does it feel to be a thief.
Lost,
Are you from NJ? I live about 10 miles from the pine barrens. Depending on which ones you mean. Let me know man.
FugetaboutRichard. He calls other people trolls and all kinds of names to make himself feel better yet, I see his opposing posts all over the place. Hypocrite LMAO....
Thanks.
You are so petty and pathetic. That is when you know you have won the argument. When idiots start making fun of your avatar. LMAO!
then we must have WON the argument along time ago,as you have none,all you have been doing is calling people names with no true rebuttal. what ARE your ideas richard?
No Richard,
You know you've won by how many points you have. Now go back at all your posts and see how great you did. In fact, add them all up together and you'll be lucky to even get ten total thumbs up out of your forty posts....
Also, speaking of avatar's, in the USMC, you're taught to never look down. It shows that you have no competence in yourself.
richardharrow=true liberal. NO ANSWERS,but LOTS of name calling,all under the guise of himself being the most LOGICAL person on this vine. i call foul(mouth too). NEW laws(not no laws,or remove laws) will do NOTHING. PROVE me WRONG with a REAL idea! And BANNING certain kinds of guns is NOT an idea(we already banned assault rifles,you know..the ones that are truely "assault rifles", automatics). How many "large capacity magazines" were used in THESE shootings? I'll give you a clue(no vowel buying neccessary)NONE! i await your rebuttal(not really,i have things to do,but will check back later to see how many names you can call me).
poor richard, I am not making fun of your avatar, I am calling you a common criminal, A thief who has stolen someone elses property, You are no better than the person who shoplifts from the local store.
Creek Dog, Yes I live in the Pine barrens, Burlington County although I also have property in Ocean County
Lost,
I live in Groveville. Nobody really knows where that is but you may. You know, on the other side of Bordentown so we're not too far apart...
My house backs up to Crosswicks. Green Acres. Cannot build so we ride our quads in the back and fish all the time in Crosswicks Creek.
sounds nice...
When a child is produced to gain income and benefits, they become future inmates.
Rude-numbers
You don't know what you're talking about. Welfare reforms are decades old now, and people are only in the program for a year or two, regardless of how many children they have.
Pay attention!
That's a ridiculous comment United...There are 3 and 4 generations of families that live on government hand outs...
Welfare is not the only form of government subsudization of those who refuse to work, There are programs that subsudize everything from housing to food to electric bills to cable TV and Telephones, Welfare reform just resulted in the liberals in government finding new ways to give away taxpayer money to buy votes.
There are people who have been on welfare thirty or more years and who have Never worked a day in their lives. And look at the immigrants legal and Illegal that come to this country and collect welfare without ever putting a Dime into the system. In fact Immigrants can get welfare easier than Americans. If they can't speak english, Bam, they get welfare.
Does the government have any white housing projects in Chicago?
I read the other day that people on welfare were using there benefits to go to titty bars and party at bars etc...
Talk about pissed of man....
that has always been the goal of the NWO bunch. Destroy the family first, and the rest follows. I don't care what party is in Washington they seem to me to be working in the same direction just taking different roads. We really need to go there and clean house if you love this country. They should all be placed under arrest and made to pay for their treason. Thats the big reason they want America dis-armed...
Sure would bet these were gang related.How many with the semi auto rifle??Not a one.Washington really has no clue.If the cops know who the gang members are then they should do something about them.nearly any state can tell you,"we have this or that number of gangs,"How do they know that??Take care of the gangs and away goes most of the problems..
No rifles. You cannot hide an "Assault Weapon" under a hoodie.
You can't even get a hoodie anymore, much less a rifle. I tried to get a hoodie the other day and the store said they had all been shoplifted.
I heard that one somewhere and just loved it. Seemed like good timing.
Until this BROKEN justice system is revised, it's only going to get worse. Personally I don't care if all the street punks are killed off, puts the law abiding citizens in a better position.
Bring back public capital punishment. Who cares if it is cruel to hang a person in the public? It sure as hell kept people more afraid of punishment than todays life term with parole after 3 years!
Ahh, the road to Tyburn...
Wry...I know, right? LOL. I wonder if they would get the same symapthy as Jack Sheppard...I would doubt it ;)
Pat G, the only thing about bringing back more capitol punishment, it's run by government. They can't be trusted to hang the right people. Further they will only abuse it like every thing else they have their fingers into...
gun laws are working great. make sure only criminals own guns. bet none of the guns involved were legally owned
criminal and government... It's all about control.
They had better start enforcing their gun control laws.
tracy-logic,holy cow, i didn't think it existed anymore!
good thing the criminals are killing each other. kind of like abortion
At what point does Rahmie call in the National Guard to save these roaches from themselves? Come to think of it, why bother?
Self extermination of cockroaches is a bad thing??????? NO!
Margaret Sanger would be proud of the way liberals have tackled population control amongst minorities.
Rich white guys run Chicago, blacks are the ones getting killed, sound fishy to anyone else?
Chicago is proof positive that gun control is not the answer, too bad liberalism is a mental disorder where they think that if their idea hasn't worked yet, they just need to do more of it and they will get a different result.
White and black have nothing to do with it... It's about responsible and irresponsible...
Yet the vast number of these shooting in Chicago and other big cities is black on black.
Yea, color has nothing to do with it.
The moral decay of our society and the liberal refusal to admit it is why there is such a number of minority deaths among the youth.
Rich white guys sitting behind their security guards make laws that make the populace victims.
The rich white people are driving into these areas to buy blow and weed have blood on their hands.
The war on drugs really IS the problem. You all that say let them shoot each other need to remember that these are kids, for Gods sake! Let me guess, you're anti-choice...
i dont think im ever gonna understand you liberals.its always someone elses fault.hey @!$%# read your last for post.blame,blame,blame,blame.god when do you liberals stand up and own it.this is what you wanted,this is the result.hows that ivory tower
jhertz Maybe you haven't read your fellow Extreme Rights posts blaming Rahm Emmanuel and Obama. Know thy enemy but also know thy self. Your barracks are made of glass bro
RichardHarrow, Both Emmanuel and Obama are liberals that believe in eliminating gun ownership from private citizens, That is a fact, This is their beliefs.
By the way, you have stolen copyrighted property and converted it for your personal use, That photo image you have as an avatar is a copyrighted image and you have stolen it and are using it for your own personal use, You are in violation of the law, How does it feel to be called a criminal.
That is not a fact and that is not their beliefs. You are a delusional conspiracist.
"How does it feel to be called a criminal."
HAHA, What? Good I guess? You say that like I just got done calling you a criminal. Do you feel guilty about something?
The criminals are in the White House and the DOJ. How can anybody call for new Gun Laws and continue to supply weapons to Terrorist groups overseas?? Also, look at the OBAMA cover-up of Fast and Furious.
The lib.'s don't want to talk about "fast & furious" so will you please stop it, tiredobs... and dick breath, I mean richardharrow, I thought I asked you to stop running your idiot mouth, you have nothing intelligent to say. Obama and his socialist croud have been intent on dis-arming America for many yrs now where did you grow up dummy?
Unarmed, law abiding sheeple targets, all. Only a few posts so far here, and they really seem to have hit upon the valid points of this growing problem. Some years ago, I knew a family in Chicago, white and upper middle class. Quite liberal, politically, and very anti second amendment. Their house is now well armed, after the failures of the usual PC fixes (dog, alarm systems, community watches, many police-resident work groups, etc.) brought family tragedy. Not a rare story, as our well armed liberal hypocrite pols well know. But "By the Border" is correct, in that societal change is a coming, when things get bad enough, which could still be a ways off. A strong man to keep the punks at bay and make the trains run on time. Scary, as Europeans a few generations ago well know. Aa.
How many car crashes in "Chicago Since Friday"? This Psy Op is completely transparent. The government/bankers are in a desperate hurry to get rifles away from the sheeple. This has NOTHING to do with "gun crime". Gun crime has dropped 49% in just the last 10 years according to FBI.gov. "Assault Weapons" killed 500 people last year. Hammers killed 600 people last year. Makes more sense to ban hammers.
Typical idealogical thought process from the dimwhitcrats! Great job showing the ignorance of gun control. And death by guns is way down on the main killing equipment. Clubs is second. Abortion far outweighs any other. Drunk drivers and sharp instruments (ie: knives, screwedrivers,etc) is still higher than guns. But as usual the dimwhitcrats are a dollar short and a day late on brains!
Pat...it is a bunch of Libtard knee-jerk (and I emaphasize the word JERK) reactionists who would rather forcibly extract citizens' rights than to deal with the actual problem. Like one poster said, more hammers killed people last year than assault rifles. Do we ban hammers? When the f*ck does it end? They start with assault rifles and it gives them carte blanche to take ALL guns from law-abiding citizens. Does anyone remember what Hitler said back in 1939? "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizenry.." We are on a slippery road here. folks, and more "ice" is forming....
PAT G, Don't kid yourself, the lib.'s may seem like they have no brains, in most cases with the sheep I agree, but they know what they are doing. It's not about fighting crime, It's simply about dis-arming honest patriotic Americans so they can control us without any body being able to fight back. Just like Hitler, Stalin, Moa, etc. In fact they are fully capable of murder to carry out their agenda, look at "fast & furious" no one has been held accountable for that yet...and were supposed to forget about it...
Yep its funny that the 3 US cities with the stiffest gun control have the highest gun related crimes in the US.
Whats even funnier is that the officials of these 3 cities are all the ones plugging gun cun control.
You guys fix your own problems and quit trying to fix ours. We dont want the kind of fix you have created in your own cities
dave,you are correct, i saw cuomo last night advocating stronger gun laws,haha,like he's anyone who can talk. they should clean their own houses before telling me to.
Isn't Chicago the Libs "Heaven"... Strict gun laws... One thing for certain,you can't legislate morality... America subsides the breeding of rats and consumers. When the hard working and responsible are eliminated or moved the rats will finally consume themselves..
Don't outlaw legal guns. Outlaw all gangs! It is still obvious that the gangs don't pay ANY attention to the law anyway, and will have guns long after the rest of the population has been stripped of their guns and any legal right to own them. You want to cause chaos in Chicago? Just keep taking guns away from law abiding citizens! The gangs will become the most feared thing in the whole 'people's republic of Chicago'.
They will become Obama's BROWN SHIRTS.
I am old enough that I remember the War on Drugs, lost. I remember the War on Poverty, lost. Now we have the War on Guns. All Democrat Party initiatives supported by Republicans that have failed. The only thing keeping us from total destruction is our individual liberty that allows us as individuals to tackle problems ourselves and change our little corner of the world. Gun Control will take away our ability to keep our families safe and if we let it happen our world will be a bitter one indeed.
oldddog--
How does gun control take away the ability to keep your family safe? If you are old enough, and sane enough, you'll be allowed to buy guns. No-one is taking anything away--pay attention!
another ridiculous statement United...it's call incrementalism...are you paid to put out your dribble?
Actually places like Chicago and Washington DC and even NJ have made the process of obtaining a permit to carry a concealed weapon impossible for any ordinary citizen, It does not matter how old or sane you are you are going to be denied the permit and thus the ability to defend your own life, All the while the politicians and influential are given these permits and taxpayer paid armed security to protect themselves and their family. Is Rahm Emanuels or any other government officials family any more important than my family...No... But they are afforded the protection and I am denied it, They are given this protection at taxpayer expense and I am denied it even when I would pay for it myself.
Lostin...meanwhile, the gub'ment keeps buying hundres of thousands of hollow point bullets, and for what?? To quell any civil unrest that is sure to rear its ugly head when they destroy the 2nd amendment.
Those bast*rds take our guns, and at the same time, fortify their own ammunition stocks. It is called a Police state folks. Martial law is coming...
blow-homeland security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo last year alone,not a little bit considering their ONLY jurisdiction is US soil. lost-you are right they think WE don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves at our own cost,kind of hypocritical if you ask me. another note,hopefully a liberal can help me with an answer,why would "homeland security" need those bullets(most of which,over 70% are hollow points)and bulletproof checkpoints(like hitler had in germany).this illegal entity was created why? is our MILITARY not up to the job of securing our nation? NDAA (gives them the right to sieze anyone and hold them indefinately without bringing charges)is this constitutional or un-constitutional? i await your responses