https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/07...e-late-friday/
Printable View
ducks, Nathan89, DarrinS after reading this
https://i.imgflip.com/27z7gy.jpg
another Democrat run shithole
We don't have to care about people dying now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monostradamus
:lol Moar double takes
TheGreatYacht
TheGreatYacht
This is what you get when you give everyday blacks guns.
No blacks (or anyone) in their right mind would go to a (non staged) park full of blacks holding guns.
Hmmm, how come over the last 50 years, every time there's a Republican in the White House, the murder rate spikes or stays flat, but there's consistently a decline when a Democrat is president. Clinton lead the steepest decline of crime in US history, while W couldn't improve anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It's almost like more taxes devoted to more social programs and tougher gun laws (Clinton's assault weapons ban) leads to lower crime. Imagine that!
https://i.imgur.com/iFqBGaf.png
lol don't bring facts into this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
Yeah, this wasn't driven by any kind of racism at all.
Crack isn't 100 times more potent or dangerous than powder coke.Quote:
In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed laws that created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for the possession or trafficking of crack when compared to penalties for trafficking of powder cocaine,[2][3][4][5] which had been widely criticized as discriminatory against minorities, mostly African-Americans, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine.[6] This 100:1 ratio had been required under federal law since 1986.[17]
https://www.oxfordtreatment.com/subs...ck-vs-cocaine/Quote:
Fact: These two substances are actually almost chemically identical. It has been long observed in research that the differences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine are minor, and the difference in the manner in which both substances are normally taken is responsible for this myth.
Yeah, those disparities had nothing to with the crime rate spike in the late-80s and early 90s at all (see the spike in my above graph the after this legislation was enacted).
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
That graph ends in 2016.
lol don't bring facts in to this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Dear Leader continuing the tradition, per par.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
So why does the crime rate always spike or doesn't improve under a republican administration? Of course we know they enact policies that disproportionately affect urban areas (cut to social programs, tougher sentencing guidelines for misdemeanor crimes [like drug possession], laxer federal gun laws, not raising min. wage, etc), and they know this will cause inner city crime to spike, which they can then use as a political bludgeon to criticize those "evil Dem mayors" who've lost control of their cities.
So what? the argument was that Democrats somehow cause crime to rise. Look at that graph. Do you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Still spiking under Dear Leader. Why can't he get control of the country!Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htmQuote:
Number of deaths: 19,510
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.0
Note: Ignore my above BBC article. That's the UK crime rate. Since the headline said highest in 10 years, I though it was the US's, since the US is also experiencing the highest murder rate (at 6.0/100K) in 10 or so years. Oh, make that 22 years. Last time we were above 6/100K was 1998.
Dear Leader
Good thing Dennison stopped American Carnage on Inauguration Day.
Oh shit, I forgot that the Repugs got control of the House and Senate in 2014, which is when the murder rate under Barry started to spike :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Not sure which policies of his they rolled back, but I'm sure it was something that caused the blip.
Why does not 44 be mayor thereQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Oh he afraid
Also totally inconvenient in that graph, Slick Willy's Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was enacted in 1994...Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
Whataboutism.Quote:
Originally Posted by ducks
Yep. Gun control WORKS.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Most of the illegal guns in circulation were stolen from Bubbas who haven't a clue about how to properly secure and store a firearm, and just leave it in the top dresser drawer in the improbable event a Brown person will invade his home while he's there (criminals aren't stupid. They'll case a location and know when Bubba is and isn't home).
:lol noQuote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
That's murder rate. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Surely you folks aren't this hard up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Fair enough, but still a decent chunk. Getting 10 to 15 percent of guns off the street would be big. That said, how criminals get guns is even worse.Quote:
"Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ocon/guns.htmlQuote:
Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
Anyhow, I don't know why you're so sensitive about the gun issue. "You wanna take mur guns!" Not at all. increase age limit to 21 (same goes for the military. You're a man of science, so you should believe the studies that show the pre-frontal cortex isn't fully developed until 25. 18 is NOT an adult). Tiered licensing structure. First firearms you can buy are single shot rifles and shotguns after you pass the required safety and training courses. You receive your "C license." After a year, if you've proven to be a responsible gun owner, you can obtain your B license to allow purchase of handguns. Repeat the process for the A license, and you get such penis surrogates as AR-15s.
I want guns in the hands of responsible citizens, not your yee haw Bubbas and pilled up teenagers.
Isn't that what 'muh Chicago' is all about? Peeps shooting each other out?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
To be fair, NYC was also a hub of crime until the mid 90's (det 42nd street)... so there's more factors than just Chi-town.
The 'straw purchase" is almost indistinguishable from buying a gun as a gift. It's illegal to straw purchase a firearm, knowing the individual you intend to give it to cannot legally purchase one. So there is a crime happening at the time of purchase. Making another law about it won't make it more of a crime. You cannot police intent, you can only police actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
There's no reason to create false narratives to support a pragmatic stance though. Gun ownership is a responsibility and only responsible people should own them but that's very difficult thing to police and enforce. In what way would you separate the responsible from the irresponsible? Are you going to use the science of anatomy and set rights based on it? That's a slippery slope if so.
You said "crime to rise" and the chart is murder rate. How was the crime rate during the same period?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What part of which gun laws caused the decline in murder rate? Let's be specific. Was it the high capacity magazine manufacturing ban, the "evil features" ban, the 1986 FOPA?
They're protesters, not rioters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDVdiLpPds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wfulEBK3cQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../CrimeinUK.png
What does this chart say to you?
This is the UK
Sun's up guns up Trump shields activatedQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
This is what we do with age of consent laws, driving laws, and drinking and gambling laws, the logic being a 13 year old isn't "mature enough," due to their stage of development to sign contracts or consent to sex or even vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
You always seem to want an all or nothing solution to gun laws. My proposal wouldn't weed out all irresponsible gun owners, but it would weed out some, and some is better than none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Looks like the trend (your graph is crime incidents) was skyrocketing until the 1996 ban.Quote:
Handguns were banned for most purposes after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996
Gun laws WORK.
Here's the thing, though. I wouldn't want a full scale ban like the UK. We're a different culture where the gun is (unfortunately) an important part of US culture, especially in rural communities. I don't want to take away that from other people, so I'm okay with the "social contract" of trading some safety for rights, as we do with other things in life, like alcohol and tobacco consumption and other dangerous/risky activity.
knife/club whataboutism graph incomingQuote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
That's the conclusion you draw from this?Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
Which gun laws work in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/...-c-default.png
Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982. ... In 2010, the ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2013, Illinois became the last state in the nation to approve concealed carry. Illinois is considered to have fairly tight gun laws.Dec 10, 2018
Where is that ban in that graph?
Wow, concealed carry doesn't help the homicide rate at all.
As has been well-documented, much of the plunge in the national gun homicide rate took place in the mid-to-late 1990s, during which the rate was cut in half. In the years that followed, it stayed mostly level. It ticked up again in 2015, and likely increased again last year — final statistics aren’t out yet — driven by a ballooning gun-murder rate in a few cities. It’s unclear whether new regulations have done much to counteract this trend.
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-...y-state-2017-6
So we now have open carry. Besides, we aren't cops. Our job isn't to reduce the homicide rate, just to prevent us being part of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Um, the difference is the UK's ban was NATIONAL, while this was citywide. Hmmm? Wonder how you can get a gun into the city? Oh, you buy one in Aurora and take it to Chicago!Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
And how about det trend after the gun law was struck down and concealed carry was allowed?
https://i.imgur.com/a3xvIrp.png
Assault weapons ban in '94. And how about many other countries around the world that saw their homicide and crime rate drop after nationwide handgun bans and such? They WORK.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
But chill out. I don't want those bans here. Bubba can buy his toy if he proves he isn't a retard.
If you want to coerce a point from a chart, you can draw a line between any date and the highest point and say they are related. You causally dismissed the years between though. This was during the Obama administration. Are you going to also draw that correlation or does that not fit your new epiphany of left good, right bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightpulp
So you're saying with guns being legal in Chicago, the data doesn't illustrate it became easier for a criminal to acquire one? Then what is the purpose of new gun laws? Total ban seems like about as far as you could possibly go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
https://media1.tenor.com/images/66e4...itemid=5011214Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
https://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content...ry-400x329.png
I could easily make the point that CHL has coincided with decreased murder rates in the US. I could find charts to support any point I want to make. This isn't the point of CHL though and the Chicago issue wouldn't be resolved by CHL. It's a class separation issue, basically you have the French Riviera in some parts and Mogadishu in others. Where do you think the shootings occur?
Let’s all pretend that you guys don’t love black people killing black people.
Let's pretend you're a remote viewer and aren't also guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
It's often better to extrapolate trends over a period of time rather than day-by-day, year-by-year and what have you. Trends don't always emerge linearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
:lol It was also after the Rs took control of the house and senate. That said, Obama wasn't really left anyway. Never a fan.
I didn't need an epiphany to understand that left is good and right is bad (for the sake of the argument, I'm leaving out extremes, like communists and white nationalists, both equally shit). I think the platform of the mainstream American conservative party is illogical, irrational, and harmful. It's a vacuous ideology that only makes sense if you really, really need a couple of more crumbs added to your yearly bottom line through their oh so generous tax cuts.
You would be disappointed with the people I hired.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
About concealed carry permits:Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
What do I keep saying my demand of ALL gun owners is? Training.Quote:
You have completed all the required training courses.
That said, it's funny how the maker of the graph left out the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. It's seems homicides were still sharply trending up at the beginning of the Concealed Carry era and then dropped after 1994 with the introduction of the assault weapons ban.
https://i.imgur.com/s6aaIC0.png
Gun laws WORK.
And yes, I wouldn't expect much of a change with an expansion of concealed carry since, as I've said, guns in the hands of PROVEN responsible gun owners likely doesn't tick up the murders.
Still not a good look for the right. In fact they look downright stupid. lol the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Another thing about the graph DMC linked. We start seeing a sharp decline in the "gun control era" from 1981 to 1986. What happened in 1986? St. Ronnie and Co. enacted a measure that would punish offenses for crack 100x worse than offenses for power cocaine. It should be obvious how a sentencing measure like this could increase inner city violence.
Fatman needs to carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
This shit is delicious
lol Trump supporter DMCQuote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Murder rate is an integral part of crime rate, but since you asked...Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...me-in-the-u-s/
First figure.
I specifically mentioned the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
AKA Slick Willy's Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was allowed to sunset in September 2004.
And BTW, I admit to having no evidence that directly relates the big drop in crime and that law, I'll be happy to leave that to somebody else that actually cares. I merely pointed out to mid that the match of the graph with the enactment of the law.
Do Democrats "actually care" about all this crime in the big cities?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
:cry muh rights :cry
Next thing you know they'll assign every child born here a number that they literally can't live their life without
A thread specifically about CHICAGO became a thread about National crime rate because Chris talked about Chicago being a poorly run Liberal stronghold.
Yeah, that whole "no one ever wants to talk about Chicago thing" to a T.
LOLST.
You really expected us to have a serious discussion on Chicago on a troll forum because one of the biggest trolls here was trolling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucho
https://tenor.com/view/charlie-murphy-gif-7237635
https://tenor.com/view/charlie-murph...y-gif-16243280https://tenor.com/view/charlie-murph...y-gif-16243280https://media.tenor.com/images/9ec51...2ad9/tenor.gif
Considering that crime has fell drastically since the mid-90s everywhere, I would say that's a yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Well, it looks like Democrats stopped caring so much in the days since the last Republican Chicago mayor (1931).Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
https://cdn.wbez.org/image/1c5e0ad6e...62a55d622fb644
besides fake outrage, what are republicans doing to help the inner city of Chicago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Create economic opportunity. Cut out corruption. Etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trill Clinton
Or do you think that these bitches need an extra helping or two of coddling?
As long is it helps them distract from other problems, they won't do shit about ut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trill Clinton
what economic opportunities are republicans currently investing in or creating in the inner city of Chicago?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular