Chicago Sings The Delta Blues As Guns Flow North

[The Legion]

I was up late last night and saw this on WGN News out of Chicago. 

 

http://wgntv.com/2014/07/31/chicago-sings-the-delta-blues-as-guns-flow-north/

[DaveTN]

Ha Ha ha, what a load of crap.

The Chicago politicians always want to blame someone else. I can assure you there is no shortage of guns in Illinois. I would bet more guns go from Central Illinois in a week than from Mississippi in a year.

They probably also don’t know how many guns are manufactured in Illinois, because they don’t know jack about what goes on the rest of the state....ArmaLite, Detonics, Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory.
,

[runco]

I still like the comparison of Chicago to Houston:

 

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/06/a-tale-of-two-cities-chicago-vs-houston/

 

[URL=http://s963.photobucket.com/user/runco0318/media/chicagovshouston_zpsf3e56cf0.jpg.html][/URL]

[BigK]

"Down South all you need is a clean record and a driver's license to buy a gun..." Well no $hit Sherlock, what else WOULD you need? If their complaint is that some thug paid someone $100 to buy him a gun, maybe there should be a law against it. Oh wait...there already is! So laws don't keep thugs from getting guns...stop the presses.

[enfield]

George Bush did it!

[DaveTN]

"Down South all you need is a clean record and a driver's license to buy a gun..." Well no $hit Sherlock, what else WOULD you need?

Some of those that live off the state (or represent those who do) think that you need to give the state $10 for a 10 year FOID card.

[DaveTN]

I still like the comparison of Chicago to Houston:

We can't throw rocks. Compare Memphis to Chicago and see what the conclusion is.

[Oh Shoot]

Some of those that live off the state (or represent those who do) think that you need to give the state $10 for a 10 year FOID card.

 

Yeah, but we're cool, only give the state $10 per gun once the state allows us to buy it, or even if not.  ;)

 

- OS

Edited August 2, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[BigK]

It's pretty disgusting to have to buy a constitutional right for $10 a pop. If the thug in Chicago has no record (or no record yet :shrug: ) he has the same constitutional right to buy a gun as I do. Difference is that his state legislates against his rights and attempt to interpret his intents as justification for denying his rights. Edited August 2, 2014 by BigK

[DaveTN]

It's pretty disgusting to have to buy a constitutional right for $10 a pop. If the thug in Chicago has no record (or no record yet :shrug: ) he has the same constitutional right to buy a gun as I do. Difference is that his state legislates against his rights and attempt to interpret his intents as justification for denying his rights.

They pay $10 once every ten years; we pay $10 every time we buy a gun from a dealer. They also don’t send any info on the gun to the state during the background check.

[monkeylizard]

Edited August 2, 2014 by monkeylizard

[JayC]

The failed 'war on drugs' is the cause of most of our violent and property crime?

 

That poor urban ethnic male youths between the age of 15 and 25 cause the vast majority of said violent and property?

 

We can't throw rocks. Compare Memphis to Chicago and see what the conclusion is.

Edited August 3, 2014 by JayC

[DaveTN]

The failed 'war on drugs' is the cause of most of our violent and property crime?
 
That poor urban ethnic male youths between the age of 15 and 25 cause the vast majority of said violent and property?

My experience on the street arresting the people that committed the violent crimes and burglaries was that they were people that could not maintain a job and their alcohol/drug abuse. So unless you are suggesting giving them their drugs and alcohol for free; that won’t change.

I’m not sure what that has to do with a comparison on the cities though. Is your point that everything is the governments fault?

[jacob]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1175219" timestamp="1407087848"]My experience on the street arresting the people that committed the violent crimes and burglaries was that they were people that could not maintain a job[u][i] and [/i][/u]their alcohol/drug abuse. So unless you are suggesting giving them their drugs and alcohol for free; that won’t change. I’m not sure what that has to do with a comparison on the cities though. Is your point that everything is the governments fault?[/quote] What point are you trying to make in YOUR comparison?

[DaveTN]

What point are you trying to make in YOUR comparison?

That we can’t throw rocks at Chicago when we have a city that is more dangerous in our state. Also that Chicago doesn’t have a high crime rate because of that cities gun laws; Memphis has guns and they still have a higher crime rate.

[jacob]

Deleted Edited August 3, 2014 by jacob

[JayC]

As a general rule in my book... everything is the governments fault ;)  It has the added benefit of normally being right ;)

 

Take a $400 a week drug habit and turn it into a $4 a week drug habit and you're talking a lot fewer crimes to feed their habit though.

 

Bad people will do bad things, nothing we can do will ever changes that...  we lock up those bad people and keep them separate from the rest of us...

 

But, how many people in your career did you arrest who were trying to steal to feed their smoking or drinking habit?  How much of our property crime is really related to cost of tobacco and alcohol?  I'd estimate it to be a very small fraction of said crime.  More importantly, when was the last time you saw Marlboro men do a drive by on Joe Camel's men over a street corner?

 

Maybe we trade a 10-15% increase in violent crime due to some more folks becoming addicted to drugs...  but in return we drastically reduce violent crime by moving the sale of drugs from the streets to stores, along with reducing petty and property crimes by drastically reducing the price of the product...  drastically reduce law enforcement costs, K9 units, asset seizures, questionable searches, no knock raids, shooting of family pets... etc.  

 

It's not some utopia, those don't exist, but it's clear to any rational person that the war on drugs is much worse at this point, than the drugs themselves.

 

My experience on the street arresting the people that committed the violent crimes and burglaries was that they were people that could not maintain a job and their alcohol/drug abuse. So unless you are suggesting giving them their drugs and alcohol for free; that won’t change.

I’m not sure what that has to do with a comparison on the cities though. Is your point that everything is the governments fault?

 

[LagerHead]

As a general rule in my book... everything is the governments fault ;)  It has the added benefit of normally being right ;)

 

Take a $400 a week drug habit and turn it into a $4 a week drug habit and you're talking a lot fewer crimes to feed their habit though.

 

Bad people will do bad things, nothing we can do will ever changes that...  we lock up those bad people and keep them separate from the rest of us...

 

But, how many people in your career did you arrest who were trying to steal to feed their smoking or drinking habit?  How much of our property crime is really related to cost of tobacco and alcohol?  I'd estimate it to be a very small fraction of said crime.  More importantly, when was the last time you saw Marlboro men do a drive by on Joe Camel's men over a street corner?

 

Maybe we trade a 10-15% increase in violent crime due to some more folks becoming addicted to drugs...  but in return we drastically reduce violent crime by moving the sale of drugs from the streets to stores, along with reducing petty and property crimes by drastically reducing the price of the product...  drastically reduce law enforcement costs, K9 units, asset seizures, questionable searches, no knock raids, shooting of family pets... etc.  

 

It's not some utopia, those don't exist, but it's clear to any rational person that the war on drugs is much worse at this point, than the drugs themselves.

 

Slow clap.  :rock:

[Guest ab28]

Slow clap.  :rock:

Not to mention, how is it the government's business if someone wants to sit at home and smoke a joint? It isn't near as bad for you as alcohol, and there isn't a hangover.

[seez52]

I'm all for it. The problem is the government going to get involved, and the price won't be much cheaper if any cheaper than buying it on the street. Colorado is a good example.

[Guest ab28]

I'm all for it. The problem is the government going to get involved, and the price won't be much cheaper if any cheaper than buying it on the street. Colorado is a good example.

Yeah, but you get stupid stuff if it was illegal, like no student loans for a drug conviction. So you have some kid doing great in college, and gets busted with some weed, and loses his grants and loans. How does that make it better? I for one am a chemistry major with GI Bill and student loans. Without the loans, I wouldn't be able to go to school. If I got randomly busted and lost it all, I wouldn't be happy to say the least. I don't currently smoke, was just one example.