The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 8, 2019, 09:26 PM   #1
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,592
Chicago - Gun Crime Sanctuary City?

Chicago - Gun Crime Sanctuary City? This articles implies that Chicago is the master of their own fate when it comes to gun violence as the laws are seldom enforced and offenders are given light punishments.

Quote:
In her confrontation with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz over guns used in Chicago crimes, which, as Cruz pointed out in response to the Dayton and El Paso shootings, occur in a city which has its own mass murder equivalent virtually every weekend, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot blamed guns brought in from Republican-controlled states. Hypocrisy has a new poster child for what Lightfoot fails to note is that what is important is not where the weapons came from, but what happened to the gun criminals and gangbangers afterword, if apprehended at all, which in Lightfoot’s Chicago has been virtually nothing.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...#ixzz5yzSDLoal
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I think it is a powerful argument, you will need to read the bulk of it at the link.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 07:16 AM   #2
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,871
Yep, folks talk about the Chicago murder rate. Bad as the murder rate in Chicago is it don't come close to being the murder capital of the US. That distinction belongs to St. Louis/East St. Louis, MO.

https://bismarcktribune.com/news/nat...0bda8e.html#31
thallub is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 08:50 AM   #3
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,131
Camden NJ shouldn't be too far behind - and don't forget NOLA
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 08:58 AM   #4
DaveBj
Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2019
Posts: 38
I would find the "guns from Indiana" argument amusing, if the topic weren't so serious in terms of human life and suffering. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but the population of the Chicago-area counties amounts to a minority (?40%?) of the population of Illinois, but a relatively small minority of that 40% is responsible for a large majority (?80%?) of the violent crime in the state. Those in the remaining ?60%? of the population of Illinois have the same access to "guns from Indiana," and yet they are responsible for only about 20% of the violent crime. There is more going on in Chicago than just "guns from Indiana".

When I get back from downtown, I'll see if I can find the exact figures, and maybe a link.

D
DaveBj is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 09:05 AM   #5
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,075
good read.
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/bl...er-rate-cities

New Orleans is number one for gun deaths..Chicago is number 10...

https://247wallst.com/special-report...-gun-violence/
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 01:18 PM   #6
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
a relatively small minority of that 40% is responsible for a large majority (?80%?) of the violent crime in the state
It is the same most places. I live in Alabama. Alabama is considered a high crime "state". Remove Jefferson County (Greater Birmingham) from the picture and we drop to last place in State rankings. Jefferson County has 15% of the population of the state and accounts for 40% of the murders. Birmingham has a higher murder rate than Chicago.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 04:56 PM   #7
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,131
And both Chicago and Birmingham, along with many other large cities, all have several thongs in common - most of which would be deemed to be political in nature and not allowed here. But some easy Google searching can find it
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 05:22 PM   #8
BobCat45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 335
Chicago maps

It is important to note that violent crime, besides being perpetrated by a small subset of the population in any given city, is also highly localized withing particular neighborhoods.

Here is the Chicago Tribune shooting victim map: https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/...=floating-rail and scroll down to mid-page.

Here is another version of the map but with more statistics:
https://heyjackass.com/

It is noteworthy that large areas of the city are devoid of reported shootings.
__________________
Retractable claws - the *original* concealed carry

http://www.bayourifles.org
TinyURL.com/qgdojvh
BobCat45 is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 07:05 PM   #9
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,131
While that Chicago chart is interesting it omits a very critical component and connection
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 07:58 PM   #10
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobCat45
It is important to note that violent crime, besides being perpetrated by a small subset of the population in any given city, is also highly localized withing particular neighborhoods.

Here is the Chicago Tribune shooting victim map: https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/...=floating-rail and scroll down to mid-page.

Here is another version of the map but with more statistics:
https://heyjackass.com/

It is noteworthy that large areas of the city are devoid of reported shootings.
Although true, I don't see your opening statement as being all that important. The city (or town ... "municipality") is about the smallest political jurisdiction we have in the U.S. that falls under a single governmental jurisdiction.

If we start at the international level, we can say that some countries have higher rates of crime than others. Oh, but wait! Some of each country's regions or provinces (states, for the U.S.) are safer than others. So then we look at the states, and we find that some counties are safer than others. And then within each county, some municipalities are safer than others. Within each municipality, some neighborhoods are safer than others, and then some blocks within each neighborhood are safer than others, until we get down to "my building is safer than your building."

The bottom line is that blocks, streets, and neighborhoods don't have their own governments. In the U.S., the smallest/lowest level of public government is typically the city/town. Therefore, regardless of whether 90 percent of the violence is confined to 10 percent of the geographic area within a municipality ... it's still under the purview of the municipal government, so IMHO they own it.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 9, 2019, 08:33 PM   #11
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
]Although true, I don't see your opening statement as being all that important. The city (or town ... "municipality") is about the smallest political jurisdiction we have in the U.S. that falls under a single governmental jurisdiction.
That's the point, the gun laws are uniform but the murder distribution is concentrated in a few areas. So we can rule out gun laws as being the primary driver of violence, and instead look at cultural factors. In this case a gang culture that is glorified and celebrated within those communities, and even has political influence.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 05:33 AM   #12
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Although true, I don't see your opening statement as being all that important. The city (or town ... "municipality") is about the smallest political jurisdiction we have in the U.S. that falls under a single governmental jurisdiction.

If we start at the international level, we can say that some countries have higher rates of crime than others. Oh, but wait! Some of each country's regions or provinces (states, for the U.S.) are safer than others. So then we look at the states, and we find that some counties are safer than others. And then within each county, some municipalities are safer than others. Within each municipality, some neighborhoods are safer than others, and then some blocks within each neighborhood are safer than others, until we get down to "my building is safer than your building."

The bottom line is that blocks, streets, and neighborhoods don't have their own governments. In the U.S., the smallest/lowest level of public government is typically the city/town. Therefore, regardless of whether 90 percent of the violence is confined to 10 percent of the geographic area within a municipality ... it's still under the purview of the municipal government, so IMHO they own it.
This illustrates one of the difficulties of gun control as an issue. A national gov't looks at the issue of "gun deaths*" on a macro and sees how many total people are killed each year. Presidential candidates have to discuss the Umpteen-Thousand people who are killed each year because they have to pander to a national audience. And national policies are created on a national scale. But sometimes they don't work on smaller scales. City to city, or building to building. Governments care how many people die. Individuals care which ones.

* =Yes, I know. Not really any better or worse than other deaths.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 07:04 AM   #13
BobCat45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 335
Thanks Armed Chicagoan, that is exactly the point I was trying to make; the laws are uniform throughout the city but "gun crime" is not at all.

The title of this thread is about Chicago being a "Gun crime sanctuary city" and, having grown up in what is known locally as "Chicagoland" - the city and near suburbs - I think it is important to note that Chicago gangsters have been killing each other for many, many years. Gang warfare is endemic to the culture.

The point being danced around is the one to which FITASC alludes. Currently, gang warfare is between gangs of young people whose ancestors came from a particular continent.

It is forbidden, for good reason, to 'go there' on this Forum, but it should be noted that gang membership is not, nor has it historically been, limited to any one group.

The forebears of the gangs that made Chicago famous for gang warfare were largely from Europe. As those immigrants assimilated and "made their way up" the social ladder, they became part of the power structure and the need to keep shooting each other diminished because there were other ways to wield power - like awarding lucrative contracts for public works to their supporters, and withholding such rewards from their detractors.

So, although I am happy to be from Chicago, as in 'not there any more', I still don't like to see the entire City smeared as a "gun crime sanctuary" based on the violent acts of a relatively small number of disaffected young people whose families, communities, and schools (city run schools) have been delinquent in showing them a way towards respect and prosperity that does not involve localized civil war.

Clearly, restrictive gun laws do not eliminate "gun violence" - but don't please dump on the entire city because their restrictive gun laws are ineffective.
__________________
Retractable claws - the *original* concealed carry

http://www.bayourifles.org
TinyURL.com/qgdojvh
BobCat45 is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 08:20 AM   #14
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,521
Quote:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot blamed guns brought in from Republican-controlled states.
That's a cheap dodge. She ran for Mayor by touting her record as an aggressive prosecutor, and she promised to ameliorate the crime problem in Chicago. She doesn't get to throw her hands up and say, "oh well. It's all because of Indiana."

Yes, guns move across state lines. That's nothing new. Guns found in crime scenes in, say, Georgia come from all over the place as well. She wants to push the narrative that people are going to Indiana or Wisconsin, buying up guns, and feeding them directly into the illicit market in Illinois. This isn't true. The vast majority of guns recovered in Chicago have been in circulation for over a decade. Those guns were probably in a lot of places before they ended up in Garfield Park or Riverdale. Perhaps Mayor Lightfoot should consider actually prosecuting people for trafficking, which is something the city rarely does.

This is part of a larger problem. The clearance rate for homicides in Chicago is 18%. The vast majority of these homicides are focused in 7 or 8 neighborhoods, which taken together, only cover a few square miles. Yet those neighborhoods impoverished and hopeless (I know, I've been there), and none of the city's Big Fancy Renewal Programs ever seem to be focused there. The cops don't do routine patrols there. The schools are a disaster. Kids growing up there don't have a chance. Mayor after Mayor has promised to do something, but once the cameras are off, all the money goes to making the city attractive to tourists and building fancy malls along 294.

The plain fact is this: when they passed their handgun ban in 1982, the promise was that it would reduce the homicide rate. They didn't tell their citizens, "well, this might help, but don't expect much because Indiana." The equation was handgun ban=lower homicide. Spoiler: it didn't. Absent any other policing or prosecution initiatives, the murder rate rose, even when the national average started to plummet in the 1990s.

Given its obvious and total failure, you'd think they wouldn't mind repealing it. Nope. They clung to it for dear life, screaming it was a vital public safety measure, even as the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. And why? Because their city is a mess, the current situation is the result of decades of corruption and mismanagement, and they think they can get the public off their backs if they just pass a ban or do a buyback for the cameras. Until that changes, the bleeding will continue.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 12:13 PM   #15
kmw1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,303
Someone suggested starting at the Top and working down, from Fed to neighborhood.

I say hogwash. I grew up in a suburb of Chicago, My ex-wife is from the North side and my eldest daughter was born at Ravenswood Hospital in Chicago.

As stated there are 4-6 neighborhoods that are the Hot Spots and some of that spills over to adjoining neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods have not changes in my lifetime (65yrs.) My maternal grandmother told me a story of once going to Al Capone for help during the depression because the city and the church would/could do nothing.

So now just a month ago there was a story I related to that took place in Chicago were two young mothers were trying their best to fight the neighborhood violence and were members of a group MASK, look it up. They were holding a vigil on a street corner when they were gunned down in a drive-by assassination.

Here these young women were trying to take back their neighborhood, trying to make a difference and were killed for it. There was a small group in attendance that night and they want to say that no one in the group could identify the shooters! I do not believe that for one moment.

If they want change then this is where it needs to start. In the Neighborhoods by the people that live there daily. They have to take their neighborhoods back. They need to run the gangs out. They know who the gangs are and they let them thrive because many are family members!
kmw1954 is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 12:50 PM   #16
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
If they want change then this is where it needs to start. In the Neighborhoods by the people that live there daily. They have to take their neighborhoods back. They need to run the gangs out.
Unfortunately they lack the tools to do so legally.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 01:12 PM   #17
BobCat45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: East Bernard, TX
Posts: 335
Yes, kmw1954, you are right that they need to take their neighborhoods back but MTT TL is also correct, they lack the means.

And I do not think the reason they "let them thrive" is because "many are family members", although that may be a factor. As you just pointed out, it is simply too dangerous to buck the gangs, they'll kill you for it. Always been that way.

All of which just reinforces the idea that restrictive gun laws, which apply all over the city, do nothing to ameliorate the shooting deaths in hot-spot neighborhoods.

Now, if "the authorities" happened to catch the guys who shot those ladies, and were able to protect the brave souls who 'ratted them out', maybe things would be different. This is the same litany - "Don't pass more laws, enforce those on the books."
__________________
Retractable claws - the *original* concealed carry

http://www.bayourifles.org
TinyURL.com/qgdojvh
BobCat45 is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 02:50 PM   #18
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,131
Quote:
If they want change then this is where it needs to start. In the Neighborhoods by the people that live there daily. They have to take their neighborhoods back. They need to run the gangs out. They know who the gangs are and they let them thrive because many are family members!
But they can't do that because they are unarmed against gangs with great firepower and politicians who do not care because the gangs make political donations.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old September 10, 2019, 09:46 PM   #19
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 749
In case anyone doubts the Chicago gangs have political influence here's an article from 2011, and nothing has changed since then: https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M...holy-Alliance/

And bear in mind that there is no MS-13 in Chicago because the powerful local gangs won't allow them to get a foothold.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old September 13, 2019, 08:06 PM   #20
OneFreeTexan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2002
Location: West, Texas
Posts: 172
St. Louis, and East St. Louis are two different cities, in two different states. Years ago, St, Louis was relatively safe,,,East St. Louis,,,definitely not.

Don’t have a clue how they are now.
OneFreeTexan is offline  
Old September 13, 2019, 11:26 PM   #21
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,251
When I was much younger, I heard NYC politicians saying how their violence problem was because of guns from outside the city....

After Washington DC banned possession of a loaded or even fully assembled handgun within DC, the district became the murder capitol of the US, eclipsing NYC, and Chicago in numbers of gun homicides annually. The mayor, and others blamed guns from Virginia, and Maryland, etc.

Now the mayor of Chicago is repeating the same tired cliché' , "its not US, it the guns from OUTSIDE!"

Now, I'm not a Chicago native, so I'll take your word for it, that gangs are a part of the culture, but I think that accepting the current level of violence and the bodycount as just part of the gang culture is a dodge.

Look at what went on during the gang wars of Prohibition. Rival gangs shot each other, and the cops, and actually took pains to see that they didn't shoot other people. Not only was it bad for business to do so, it was bad for their image.

Today's gang culture goes in just the opposite direction. They glorify their eagerness to kill, and make it a status symbol.

There is a cure for this, but our political system is reluctant to pay the cost. It is much, much cheaper to simply pass laws affecting only the law abiding, and claim victory, for a while, then, when the laws are ineffective at curing the problem, pass more laws that won't fix the problem, and claim victory, again.

The real problem is the elephant in the room no one talks about, except in terms of "mental health". We talk about the mental health of the mass shooters, and what to do, etc, but what we don't talk about is less dramatic and more deadly. It is not the type of guns (assault weapons are a red herring), its not the availability of guns, it is the willingness of people to pull the trigger.

Now, we have been glorifying "outlaw" behavior for a long time, from the cheap novels regaling us with tales of he outlaws of the Wild West, and later there was some admiration for some of the "motor bandit" outlaws, like Bonnie and Clyde, but these things were primarily in the abstract for regular people. Like the weekly serial at the movie theater, it was escapist entertainment, not a way of life to emulate.

That's changed now. One of the many. many changes in our society since those earlier days. Some of those changes have been for the better, for all of us. Some, apparently have not.

Why do we feel some places are "sanctuaries" for crime? Because we see so many repeat offenders it seems that they are not being punished.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 14, 2019, 09:22 AM   #22
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
The real problem is the elephant in the room no one talks about, except in terms of "mental health". We talk about the mental health of the mass shooters, and what to do, etc, but what we don't talk about is less dramatic and more deadly. It is not the type of guns (assault weapons are a red herring), its not the availability of guns, it is the willingness of people to pull the trigger.
Where you see mental health I see drugs. While we may never show that most killers are mentally ill we can certainly show that practically all killers use mind altering drugs.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old September 14, 2019, 12:30 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Where you see mental health I see drugs. While we may never show that most killers are mentally ill we can certainly show that practically all killers use mind altering drugs.
We can prove all kind of things are present, so there is a "link" or a "correlation". What we cannot prove is whether or not something was the cause, or simply just there.

One of our problems discussing this is that the labels we use (and have to use) are painted with brushes 3 meters wide. Take mental illness, for the first (of many) examples. What is, and is not mental illness is a matter of personal opinion, and current social attitudes, within a legal framework.

The law has sets of standards, generally based on behavior, used to classify people as "criminally insane, judgmentally impaired, incompetent, or some other legal classification. Different government agencies use DIFFERENT standards.

Doctors and health professionals have ANOTHER set of standards (which may, or may not overlap legal standards), and regular people in conversation use many different standards, the only one seeming to be common is that people who do things they disapprove of are "crazy".

"Crazy" people are, by our definitions, mentally ill. If we don't know, or can't understand the reason people do things, if what they do doesn't make "sense" to us, we call them crazy.

The guy who guns down dozens of people for no reason we can understand is crazy, he MUST be mentally ill. But the guy who guns down a dozen people while shooting at some rival gang member, are they mentally ill?? Are they "crazy"? No one seems to say so, they are just "criminals".

Drugs being the cause? POSSIBLY, but we don't, and can't know, unless the shooter themselves tell us so, and even then its just a "mentally ill" person's OPINION.

Absolutely, we can prove drugs were present, but there is no way to know if they were the cause, an enabling factor, or simply just there.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 14, 2019, 02:59 PM   #24
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,592
Quote:
Drugs being the cause? POSSIBLY, but we don't, and can't know, unless the shooter themselves tell us so, and even then its just a "mentally ill" person's OPINION.
I can tell you with only one exception that the killer will tell you that he is certain that the drugs absolutely had NOTHING to do with his behavior and that whatever the drug in question was it is not only not dangerous, but provides multiple beneficial effects.

The only exception is if he is trying to get a reduced sentence or some kind of favorable treatment after the fact. In that case the drug was without question the problem and addiction is a terrible thing.

Quote:
The guy who guns down dozens of people for no reason we can understand is crazy, he MUST be mentally ill. But the guy who guns down a dozen people while shooting at some rival gang member, are they mentally ill?? Are they "crazy"? No one seems to say so, they are just "criminals".
We have several things going on here. The majority of people at some point in their lives experiment with marijuana and less commonly even harder drugs. This gives them a false perspective on drug use. Much the same way that people who drink alcohol (a legal drug used recreationally) occasionally never experience all the detrimental effects of sustained alcohol abuse which are significant, life changing and alter a person's mental state and brain function. Because they have this false frame of reference they try to apply rational behavior in to actions that placed in to actual context would otherwise be deemed "crazy".

As noted it is difficult to determine if the effects are from an underlying mental illness or from the drugs. The paranoia effects of certain drugs such as marijuana, meth, cocaine and other drugs are well documented, observable serve as a good example. Paranoia is especially relevant as people who then take drugs that also lower their inhibitions will be much more likely to act violently on their fears. If the frame of reference for the intoxicated or mind addled person are rival gang members that he is who he will attack. If he believes that a Congresswoman or the President or responsible then he will go after that person. So was it the drugs or was it a pre-existing mental issue? I say none of that really matters.

Most people keep missing the underlying issue.

Practically all killers are on drugs. The implication is obvious. Remove the drugs and you could potentially remove most of the killings. This is advantageous for many reasons.

The gun control lobby wants to remove a method. If there were no more guns then yes, the number deaths by shooting would be reduced greatly. It will do little to stop actual killings however so long as the underlying cause of the violence it still present.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old September 14, 2019, 10:24 PM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,251
Quote:
Remove the drugs and you could potentially remove most of the killings.
It seems obvious, but is it correct?? Seems to me that removing the drugs (assuming you could) still puts things in this category,

Quote:
It will do little to stop actual killings however so long as the underlying cause of the violence it still present.
If you recognize that taking the guns away won't stop the killing, only change the common methods, why do you think taking the drugs away will stop the killing?

Assuming you could. You CAN get the medical establishment to stop proscribing certain drugs through the authority of the government, but that same government has been fighting a "war on drugs" for a long time now, and they haven't been able to "take away" the supply of illegal drugs overall.

You say "take the drugs away and the most of killing may stop" but aren't we ALREADY doing what is humanly possible at taking away ILLEGAL drugs?

I believe we've put more people in prison over the years, for possession of a prohibited plant or chemical compound than we have for violent crimes like murder, rape, and assault. That's our best effort at taking away the drugs, and its gotten us where we are today.

Doing more of what isn't working rarely changes failure into success.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13350 seconds with 10 queries