7 Dead, 30 Wounded in Weekend Violence

[Middleground]

In New York too, when will liberals realize more gun control equals more severe crime

In Australia, gun control has worked splendidly.

 

[VanceMack]

Hard to deny people health care benefits and social spending costs, when other things related to health care costs such as alcohol, obescity, etc are major factors as well.

Unless you are looking to do a total review of everything health care related that you want to exclude, I think focusing on only the drug aspect is foolish and discriminatory.

World of difference etween what casual use...even DAILY use of alcohol or marijuana will do to a person vs what heroin or methamphetamines will do to a person...but...if you insist...deny all services to any substance abusers. Im good with that too.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Chicago has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country.


Seven people were killed and at least 30 others were shot in violence that plagued Chicago over Father's Day weekend.

Six of the fatalities and 11 other shootings occurred overnight Saturday leading into Father's Day, including the fatal shooting of a 16-year-old boy.



Source: 7 Dead, 30 Wounded in Weekend Violence | NBC Chicago

Too bad America wasn't smart enough to send the Community Organizer in Chief back to Chicago last November where he might have actually had something to offer.

 

[VanceMack]

In Australia, gun control has worked splendidly.

1-Not all Aussies agree with that assessment, and
2-The USA is not Australia. They have never had to deal with the gang problems we have and anyone that is honest about the problem will admit that the VAST majority of murders in this ****ry are committed by people that would still have no problem getting illegal weapons. As for the suicide angle re firearms, Australia, Japan, and others demonstrate pretty clearly...people committed to committing the act, commit quite successfully without firearms, at a rate greater than here in the states.

in other words...gun control would probably work quite splendidly...in some upper middle income neighborhoods with gated communities and little to no crime or gang problems.

 

[MMC]

They're already looking at other areas of crime, such as prostitution, but the real money is in drug dealing. No ending prohibition isn't going to totally end gang activity, but it would take a lot of the wind out of their sails.

It's hard to see how gangs could be any more racially divided than they are now. There are black gangs, Latino gangs, Asian gangs, white supremacist gangs, are there really any integrated gangs?

Heya DH. :2wave: Yet the difference is.....they are not attacking each other out of race. It is divided here by the People and the Folks. So Black gangs going after other black gangs. Latinos going after latinos. Not Racially motivated. But that would change too.

Sure the drugs are a min part of it. But like you stated they will increase prostitution. Car jackings, Chop Shops would rise up moreso, then they would start hitting the Pharma companies.

Course now they are also into legal Drugs. Like Ritalin and Seraquel. Xanax, and all sorts of pills. Selling prescripts for testing days and whatnot. Also the Steroids.

 

[DVSentinel]

The Latin Kings deal in Military Ordinance and Military weapons. Have you considered there are bangers who were in the Armed Services. Which doesn't count who is ready for Urban warfare and fights it on a daily basis.

Which then leaves that problem about kids under 12years of age and running around with weapons. Then the Pee-wees and Juniors that will do anything to become a full-fledged members and known in their hood.

And this has what to do with my response to something DHN posted? Did you read our line of posts?

 

[DVSentinel]

Well, you may not be a true redneck, then. Do you at least have a pick up truck with a confederate flag painted on the top, beer cans in the bed, tobacco juice running down the door, and a gun rack in the back window?

Actually, I am much more "Geek" than redneck. I do own a pickup, but no, none of the rest apply.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Heya DH. :2wave: Yet the difference is.....they are not attacking each other out of race. It is divided here by the People and the Folks. So Black gangs going after other black gangs. Latinos going after latinos. Not Racially motivated. But that would change too.

Sure the drugs are a min part of it. But like you stated they will increase prostitution. Car jackings, Chop Shops would rise up moreso, then they would start hitting the Pharma companies.

Course now they are also into legal Drugs. Like Ritalin and Seraquel. Xanax, and all sorts of pills. Selling prescripts for testing days and whatnot. Also the Steroids.

So, instead of attacking each other for drug turf, they'll kill each other based on race? I'm not sure just why that would happen.

As for the rest of it, sure, they'd try to branch out into other sorts of crimes as well, but most of their profits would dry up. There's no way that carjackings would produce the same sorts of profits that drug dealing does. For one thing, they're already into car thievery, and for another, there are ways of dealing with car theft, like putting GPS units in cars and tracking them. End 90% of their profits, and 90% of their business will close.

It's just like those video cassette rental places, their profits dried up, and where are they now?

 

[DVSentinel]

In Australia, gun control has worked splendidly.

And Australia has a population of what? Spread out over how much territory? Were all guns once legal there with no restrictions whatsoever? They share a land border with how many other countries? Do they have a population that has had two centuries of almost unrestricted gun ownership with private ownership playing a pivotal role in the history of their country? Did they have over 100 million gun owners that they took the guns away from when the instituted those gun control laws?

 

[Middleground]

And Australia has a population of what? Spread out over how much territory? Were all guns once legal there with no restrictions whatsoever? They share a land border with how many other countries? Do they have a population that has had two centuries of almost unrestricted gun ownership with private ownership playing a pivotal role in the history of their country? Did they have over 100 million gun owners that they took the guns away from when the instituted those gun control laws?

Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun Control Australia - Supporting Gun Control in Australia

BTW, did you take the time to scrutinize the OP with his broad brush conclusion of the shootings in Chicago this weekend?

 

[MMC]

And this has what to do with my response to something DHN posted? Did you read our line of posts?

Yeah I read the Whole thread.....and it has to deal with what ya started off with the Red neck comment. Doesn't it?

Were talking Urban Warfare. Like I said.....then comes those under 12 years of age.

 

[jmotivator]

It sounds like the authorities are at least working on the problem. Now, how to make those drug empires less profitable. Surely, there must be some way to accomplish such a thing. Anyone have any ideas?

I hear that the Latin Kings are making big money in New York selling 24oz sodas.

 

[DVSentinel]

Yeah I read the Whole thread.....and it has to deal with what ya started off with the Red neck comment. Doesn't it?

Were talking Urban Warfare. Like I said.....then comes those under 12 years of age.

And you are taking a lighthearted joking comment way to seriously.

 

[DVSentinel]

Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun Control Australia - Supporting Gun Control in Australia

BTW, did you take the time to scrutinize the OP with his broad brush conclusion of the shootings in Chicago this weekend?

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading.

But I think you missed the whole point, or ignored it. That being that you cannot accurately compare the two.

What broad brush?

 

[MMC]

So, instead of attacking each other for drug turf, they'll kill each other based on race? I'm not sure just why that would happen.

As for the rest of it, sure, they'd try to branch out into other sorts of crimes as well, but most of their profits would dry up. There's no way that carjackings would produce the same sorts of profits that drug dealing does. For one thing, they're already into car thievery, and for another, there are ways of dealing with car theft, like putting GPS units in cars and tracking them. End 90% of their profits, and 90% of their business will close.

It's just like those video cassette rental places, their profits dried up, and where are they now?

Here is an interesting Piece DH.....on Do Drugs make a Gang or do gangs make drugs.

This conversation about drug legalization was long and wide ranging. One possible view is that gangs exist wherever there is poverty; if it isn't drugs, it's sugar or milk or whatever they can control. The essential ingredient for gangs, in this view, is a large supply of young men with few alternatives in the legal economy.

I've been thinking a lot about this over the last few days. It still seems to me that gangs are hard to support when there is good policing. Gangs flourish in places like Rio because the police force is corrupt and doesn't care about the favela inhabitants. They flourish in drugs and prostitution because contracts are not legally enforceable--if you can't sue to get the drugs you're owed, you need to use violence. Since there is safety in numbers, you get a gang.

As it happens, I'm reading The Bottom Billion, Paul Collier's excellent book on poverty traps in the developing world. As you can imagine, it has something to say on the subject of lawless bands of young men preying on the populace. A lot of it backs up the first position. "Civil war," Collier says, is much more likely to break out in low-income countries: halve the starting income of the country and you double the risk of civil war."

. . . according to psychologists, on average about 3 percent of any population have psychopathic tendencies, so you can be sure that some of those in the recruitment line will be psychopaths. Others will be attracted by the prospect of power and riches, however unlikely; if the reality of daily existence is otherwise awful, the chances of success to not have to be very high to be alluring. Even a small chance of the good life as a successful rebel becomes worth taking, despite the high risk of death, because the prospect of death is not so much worse than the prospect of life in poverty.

So what characteristics did make people more likely to engage in political violence? Well, the three big ones were being young, being uneducated, and being without dependents. Try as one might, it is difficult to reconcile these characteristics of recruitment with an image of a vanguard of fighters for social justice.

So at least in the early stages, this seems to indicate that legalizing drugs wouldn't reduce crime too much; indeed, by disrupting a somewhat stable market, it might increase crime.

And where are the violent groups most likely to form? One might think it would be in the districts that are most deprived of social amenities, for that is supposedly what it is all about--oil wealth being stolen by the oil companies and the federal government instead of being used for the benefit of local communities. But Aderoju found that . . . there was no relationship between the social amenities that a district possessed and its propensity to political violence. Instead, the violence occurred in the districts with oil wells.

On the one hand you argued that the drug wars implied huge wasted rents leading to crime. On the other you cite Levitt etc on the low returns to drug dealing. These two positions cannot be reconciled. If there are mostly winner take all rents in drug dealing, and the average returns are small, then the artificial rents due to drug control cannot, ipso facto, be large. Thus, one has to ask, if small rents with winner-take-all markets are sufficient to generate this huge amount of crime, then (probably) smaller rents due to legalization (and having to find substitutes) should still be sufficient to generate gang problems in the absence of a cure to the policing problems in poor areas with dysfunctional groups.....snip~

Do drugs make gangs, or do gangs make drugs? - Megan McArdle - The Atlantic

Whatcha thinks DH?

 

[MMC]

And you are taking a lighthearted joking comment way to seriously.

Sorry about that.....I have been fighting against gangbangers and their ways for a long time.

Moreover I have listened to What they have to say even with the most ridiculous means on those coming to take them out. Truly some of the most absurd things you can hear people say.

 

[American]

it would be great if both sides of this debate stopped pointing to things that that are irrelevant. For example most of the shootings in chicago are gang on gang. no gun control bill would stop that, just as no bill will stop crazy people from doing crazy things. that is not to say we can strengthen controls in a logical way and prevent some incidents.

bingo

 

[Thoreau72]

They're already looking at other areas of crime, such as prostitution, but the real money is in drug dealing. No ending prohibition isn't going to totally end gang activity, but it would take a lot of the wind out of their sails.

It's hard to see how gangs could be any more racially divided than they are now. There are black gangs, Latino gangs, Asian gangs, white supremacist gangs, are there really any integrated gangs?

Considering the amount of interracial breeding that's been going on in this country for many decades, there are probably far more 'integrated' gangs than you might imagine.

Ah, for the good old days of West Side Story and its integrated gangs.

 

[Michael66]

Considering the amount of interracial breeding that's been going on in this country for many decades, there are probably far more 'integrated' gangs than you might imagine.

Ah, for the good old days of West Side Story and its integrated gangs.

There is an easy answer America! Just like there was an easy answer for your school shooting problem. Put armed guards around all black neighbourhoods! And maybe a border fence similar to Israel's apartheid wall too! Can't be too safe.

 

[MMC]

There is an easy answer America! Just like there was an easy answer for your school shooting problem. Put armed guards around all black neighbourhoods! And maybe a border fence similar to Israel's apartheid wall too! Can't be too safe.

What do we do about the Triads out West Coast? Or the Yakuza out East Coast? What about the Latino Gangs and organizations? What about Hell's Angels?

 

[Rocketman]

Too bad America wasn't smart enough to send the Community Organizer in Chief back to Chicago last November where he might have actually had something to offer.

yeah, this just proves if you hand out enough freebies anyone can get re-elected

 

[MMC]

yeah, this just proves if you hand out enough freebies anyone can get re-elected

Heya RM. :2wave: Which doesn't Count Chicago Pols using those bangers to get out and vote either.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Here is an interesting Piece DH.....on Do Drugs make a Gang or do gangs make drugs.

This conversation about drug legalization was long and wide ranging. One possible view is that gangs exist wherever there is poverty; if it isn't drugs, it's sugar or milk or whatever they can control. The essential ingredient for gangs, in this view, is a large supply of young men with few alternatives in the legal economy.

I've been thinking a lot about this over the last few days. It still seems to me that gangs are hard to support when there is good policing. Gangs flourish in places like Rio because the police force is corrupt and doesn't care about the favela inhabitants. They flourish in drugs and prostitution because contracts are not legally enforceable--if you can't sue to get the drugs you're owed, you need to use violence. Since there is safety in numbers, you get a gang.

As it happens, I'm reading The Bottom Billion, Paul Collier's excellent book on poverty traps in the developing world. As you can imagine, it has something to say on the subject of lawless bands of young men preying on the populace. A lot of it backs up the first position. "Civil war," Collier says, is much more likely to break out in low-income countries: halve the starting income of the country and you double the risk of civil war."

. . . according to psychologists, on average about 3 percent of any population have psychopathic tendencies, so you can be sure that some of those in the recruitment line will be psychopaths. Others will be attracted by the prospect of power and riches, however unlikely; if the reality of daily existence is otherwise awful, the chances of success to not have to be very high to be alluring. Even a small chance of the good life as a successful rebel becomes worth taking, despite the high risk of death, because the prospect of death is not so much worse than the prospect of life in poverty.

So what characteristics did make people more likely to engage in political violence? Well, the three big ones were being young, being uneducated, and being without dependents. Try as one might, it is difficult to reconcile these characteristics of recruitment with an image of a vanguard of fighters for social justice.

So at least in the early stages, this seems to indicate that legalizing drugs wouldn't reduce crime too much; indeed, by disrupting a somewhat stable market, it might increase crime.

And where are the violent groups most likely to form? One might think it would be in the districts that are most deprived of social amenities, for that is supposedly what it is all about--oil wealth being stolen by the oil companies and the federal government instead of being used for the benefit of local communities. But Aderoju found that . . . there was no relationship between the social amenities that a district possessed and its propensity to political violence. Instead, the violence occurred in the districts with oil wells.

On the one hand you argued that the drug wars implied huge wasted rents leading to crime. On the other you cite Levitt etc on the low returns to drug dealing. These two positions cannot be reconciled. If there are mostly winner take all rents in drug dealing, and the average returns are small, then the artificial rents due to drug control cannot, ipso facto, be large. Thus, one has to ask, if small rents with winner-take-all markets are sufficient to generate this huge amount of crime, then (probably) smaller rents due to legalization (and having to find substitutes) should still be sufficient to generate gang problems in the absence of a cure to the policing problems in poor areas with dysfunctional groups.....snip~

Do drugs make gangs, or do gangs make drugs? - Megan McArdle - The Atlantic

Whatcha thinks DH?

Being young, male, with no dependents i.e. no responsibilities except to yourself, and being without education or any real prospects for the future is to be easily recruited for a gang, that's for sure. Interestingly enough, those same characteristics describe most of the radical jihadis as well, or at least the new recruits, but that's another issue (or is it?)

And, i suppose you could make the point that gangs also promote drug abuse, but then, that's no different from any profit making enterprise promoting their products.

But, it's difficult to see how gangs could make the kind of money they make in illegal drugs by cornering the market on milk.

 

[VanceMack]

"The only difference between a derelict and a man is a job"

:coffeepap

Great! a basketball league and that will solve everything! Wait,,,they HAVE the basketball league and still had the 7 dead and 32 wounded. Oh...and lets not forget how easily those 'basketball leagues' could get exploited.

lots of changes have to happen. Yes...absolutely...economic opportunites, better education, a communtiy willing to tell the assholes no more and stop defending criminal behavior with excuses, and draconian prison sentences for people that refuse to get the message.

 

[VanceMack]

Being young, male, with no dependents i.e. no responsibilities except to yourself, and being without education or any real prospects for the future is to be easily recruited for a gang, that's for sure. Interestingly enough, those same characteristics describe most of the radical jihadis as well, or at least the new recruits, but that's another issue (or is it?)

And, i suppose you could make the point that gangs also promote drug abuse, but then, that's no different from any profit making enterprise promoting their products.

But, it's difficult to see how gangs could make the kind of money they make in illegal drugs by cornering the market on milk.

Similar to running cheap diseased prostitutes for 5-10 bucks a blowjob, all they have to do is offer a cheaper product. If they build it, people will come.