They have the toughest gun laws in the US in Chicago and it's a fricken war zone.
Santa Fe shooting
- Thread starter gunslingerdick
- Start date
You people have got to stop this crap. Strict gun laws are obviously not the only variable in play that would determine the level of violence in Chicago. You’re completely ignoring whether or not it would be even worse with more lax laws, which is a very real possibility.
When a city is overrun with gang activity it’s obviously going to take more than just gun laws. But don’t let that get in the way of spouting off more illogical politicized garbage.
I agree, but the problem is both sides want to focus solely on that and not other measures that are more likely to stop the violence in the first place. And if we are honest about it, those reason disproportionately impact minorities. That keeps us from having honest debates about a lot of issues.
Folks, I think you should listen to this. Becuse if there’s anyone that knows something about spouting off illogical politicized garbage, it’s this guy.
Thank you master of political discourse. Maybe you can go find a t shirt to get your point across
I’ve never met anybody who thinks gun laws are a end all solution for Chicago. On the the hand I have met lots of people who are dumb enough to look at one variable like gun laws and try to use that as a counter argument.
Oh c’mon now...don’t get pissy because you’re the butt of all the jokes here. Who better to fill that role?
Butt of all the jokes? Lol this is coming from the guy who likes watching his wife with other dudes...
Huh? You can’t just make shit up and hope it sticks.
You shouldn’t be embarrassed about your role here. Every board needs a whipping boy.
When I say focus on it, I meant talk about it and kind of ignore the underlying issues that actually get kids to the point of wanting to use a gun. Gun laws are a great political talking point for both sides. The real issues are harder to deal with.
The solution to limiting/ending domestic gangs (i.e. not MS13) like the ones in Chicago is to attack the issue of inner-city poverty. It's not a hard cycle to figure out in terms of why people join gangs in inner-cities:
Person is poor and lives in a poor area --> they often are brought up in a broken home due to poor environment --> education opportunities are limited and/or person doesn't take advantage of educational opportunities, due to, in part, lack of parental guidance, due to broken home --> with limited opportunity of income, person turns to gang life as means of making money --> gangs participate in illegal activities and use violence (including guns) to rule their territory. Gangs only exist because previous poor people from the same poor environment had limited guidance and limited economic options, so they turned to a life of crime and founded an organization to assist in said life of crime.
To fix gang issues, we need to attack the issue of perennial inner-city poverty. But that's a hard issue that politicians (both in Chicago and nationally) don't want to tackle. Instead, they want to grandstand on "easy" single-faceted issues like gun control legislation. They also instead want to play the PC card and bring attention to occurrences where cops, who have to patrol dangerous gang neighborhoods daily, get in altercations and kill someone(s) who may or may not have a rap sheet a mile long.
We always focus on the wrong shit to fix, because we are unwilling to tackle complex, multi-faceted issues.
Person is poor and lives in a poor area --> they often are brought up in a broken home due to poor environment --> education opportunities are limited and/or person doesn't take advantage of educational opportunities, due to, in part, lack of parental guidance, due to broken home --> with limited opportunity of income, person turns to gang life as means of making money --> gangs participate in illegal activities and use violence (including guns) to rule their territory. Gangs only exist because previous poor people from the same poor environment had limited guidance and limited economic options, so they turned to a life of crime and founded an organization to assist in said life of crime.
To fix gang issues, we need to attack the issue of perennial inner-city poverty. But that's a hard issue that politicians (both in Chicago and nationally) don't want to tackle. Instead, they want to grandstand on "easy" single-faceted issues like gun control legislation. They also instead want to play the PC card and bring attention to occurrences where cops, who have to patrol dangerous gang neighborhoods daily, get in altercations and kill someone(s) who may or may not have a rap sheet a mile long.
We always focus on the wrong shit to fix, because we are unwilling to tackle complex, multi-faceted issues.
That's what I was talking about, I just didn't feel like writing out a Dave length post.
ETA: And one reason we are unwilling to tackle those issues is due to the fact that the people mostly impacted by that are minorities. When you use terms like "inner-city" many people want to try to say that's racist and you're just trying to blame minorities. It really doesn't make sense to me, because if we address these issues minorities would benefit the most. Isn't that a good thing?
Last edited:
Yep, it makes no sense. People get so hung up on "oh, you can't talk about that, THAT IS NOT PC!" that they can't even focus on the damn issue at hand and what needs to be done. It's pretty weird.
It's not a good thing for people who get elected on promises to make minorities' lives better. Because once they're better, what else will they need to promise to get elected?
This makes no sense. If you endlessly promise things and don’t deliver then that will not work out well.
On the other hand if you promise something and you deliver then you build loyalty.
Do you seriously believe that Democrats are deliberately keeping minorities down just so they can promise to lift them up?
You mean how politicians have endlessly promised to reform welfare, or social security or spending or education or about a million other things without actually doing it? Seems to be working out pretty good for them since they continue to get reelected. You are giving way too much credit to the knowledge of the average voter.
I wouldn't say they're deliberately keeping minorities down, just that they have incentive to not lift them up. I do believe that for that reason, they're much less upset if they are kept down than the front they put on to the public.
They each have a competitive monopoly. There is only one “liberal” party and one “conservative” party and this board is perfect evidence that most Americans will never vote across the aisle.
They don’t have to actually deliver because there is no competition to hold them accountable. It’s just a game of who can get their base riled up at election time.
But that’s not at all the same as deliberately oppressing minorities just so that you can sell them on liberation. Democrats don’t deliver because they’re bought and paid for just like the republicans. And their wealthy donors don’t want the economy to become more balanced.
Without a doubt. The plan was created by Lyndon Johnson and has been run to perfection ever since.
Last edited:
That’s not remotely clever or funny. You’re terrible at this.
It'd be great if we could have the actual major issues voted on democratically, because in the current system, if you're not right down the party line on everything, you need to pick and choose.
If I'm for universal healthcare, and against increased gun control... I'm probably going to have to make a choice on which of those issues is more important when I go to vote for a person.
I would love for something like that to happen. I think we should just put a list of mutually agreed upon topics on the ballot and the candidates stance on those issues. Whoever gets the most checks wins. No names or party affiliations should be on the ballot. I also think you should have to answer some basic questions about America as well. I know that would cause people to freak out and say it's racist, but if you can't tell me the name of the VP or how many branches of government there are then you don't deserve to vote.
Obviously neither party would go for that, but I think it's a great idea.
One of the parties wouldn't go for that, because it would significantly lower their eligible voters. But again, great idea.
You wouldn't even need or recognize parties. And, Oligarchies don't work that way, either.
Another thing something like that would do is lower voter turnout which is always a good thing. That means that a lot of uninformed and less engaged people wouldn't show up. I've never understood why people think high turnout is a good idea. The less idiots that vote the better.
