• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago gun deaths-highest increase in many years

TurtleDude

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

Crisis in Chicago - CBS News

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

But, everybody should have guns right?
 
jet57 said:
All it takes is a simple ability of research:

Crisis in Chicago - CBS News

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

But, everybody should have guns right?
Click to expand...

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

The election was good news for gangs, the Sessions nomination confirmed the continuation of the drug war.
 
Absentglare said:
The election was good news for gangs, the Sessions nomination confirmed the continuation of the drug war.
Click to expand...

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

He does have a point. I highly doubt Trump will do anything to legalize drugs which in my opinion would largely help deal with many of these issues. Legalizing drugs would virtually defund them.
 
BretJ said:
Define everybody....
Click to expand...

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

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

You are quite the winner...:roll:

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

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

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

I don't argue with a right to own a gun. I argue with the rhetoric that creates the gun problems that we've had for the last thirty years.
 
jet57 said:
Well, I mean, how was it put to rest? It didn't stop gun violence in crime. The weekend that 60 Minutes was in town doing the story, there were 55 shootings. So how did all those people getting guns help that situation?
Click to expand...

Do a search for another thread resurrected by utility man for the context....
 
BretJ said:
Do a search for another thread resurrected by utility man for the context....
Click to expand...

Nope: you said it; you have to prove it.
 
jet57 said:
If you can't credibly refute, then I guess I am the winner. Your logic on this issue is really out to lunch Bret.
Click to expand...

Hehehe....If thinking that helps you feel better, then by all means, you are a winner Jet. Hurray for you!!!
 
jet57 said:
I don't argue with a right to own a gun. I argue with the rhetoric that creates the gun problems that we've had for the last thirty years.
Click to expand...

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

(chuckle)
right.

So you cherry picked something out of a post I made to you and the meat of the post you ignored. I waited, to see if you'd follow up, but of course not.

Here it is:

Ignoring that means that it's absolutely true. That is to say, the radical gun crowd and their rhetoric, which is abhorrent to the second amendment, of whom a number of them coagulate on this board, give the 120,000,000 a real black eye and make it exceedingly difficult for ANYBODY else to see any merit in guns OR the second amendment. You will have to agree with that, and I believe that you do. I don't think however that you want to cut your nose off to spite your face and you therefore, just stay silent on the matter. I think you do yourself a disservice by that and good dialogues about the issues of guns don't happen because if it.

Get out of that box, that doesn't fit you anyway, and see where it goes.
 

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

That can be true and I believe that the ultra left has that in mind. I however do not.
 
jet57 said:
That can be true and I believe that the ultra left has that in mind. I however do not.
Click to expand...

I would be (and I think others) would be more open to discussion if everyone is not only honest in what they were trying to do but also proposing laws that I (we) fill would make a difference. As long as the narrative is based on how a gun looks and other trivial nonsense the discussion will never go anywhere. If we can get more on both sides to step from the ledge and have a civil discussion that would be good in the grand scheme ofthings but I doubt we will ever see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…