DescentBB

The manager for rapper YK, short for Yung Killa was one of 7 people killed in Chicago on Saturday, 6 more were wounded.

His poor mother has already buried two other sons and a daughter, all of her children have now been shot and killed in the streets.

She says:

“We need tougher gun laws, where people will know they will be in prison for a long time if they choose to pick up a gun and take a life.”

I think the killers don't care about going to prison.
I think if you manage a guy named yung killa you are deep in the middle of the source of the problem and it isn't that Illinois doesn't send killers to prison for a long time.

I think if all the guns in the world disappeared at the stroke of midnight Chicago's young killers wouldn't slow down one little bit.
They averaged 41 per month last year! That is 1.5 Sandy Hook school shootings every month!
This year is right on track, 40 as of the 26th.

Gun laws?
Murder laws?
WTF?!?

I hear every one of those killers wore shoes! Maybe it's the shoes!!

Dude it's a stage name..i.e Notorious B.I.G = Christopher Wallace

Lived in Chicago for quite awhile, those areas were / are pretty rough. It's weird, any time I ever thought I had it rough, I just thought about those neighborhoods. Not much opportunity for anyone to advance, beats me, I just know it's a serious problem and it's not even close to going away.

Will Robinson wrote:.
I think if you manage a guy named yung killa you are deep in the middle of a part of the problem and it isn't that Illinois doesn't send killers to prison for a long time.

this much, with my edit, I agree with....

CobGobbler wrote:Dude it's a stage name..i.e Notorious B.I.G = Christopher Wallace

Lived in Chicago for quite awhile, those areas were / are pretty rough. It's weird, any time I ever thought I had it rough, I just thought about those neighborhoods. Not much opportunity for anyone to advance, beats me, I just know it's a serious problem and it's not even close to going away.

I understand the stage name, that is my underlying point. The sub culture that these people represent is a thug life culture. The actors portray the reality and the reality is played out in the streets where the bodies hit the floor.

The mother said she was concerned that her last living child was caught up with this rapper 'because the violence that seems to follow them'. Her comment once he was dead wasn't pointed at the problem her instincts warned her about though....it was to recite the mantra that her failed leaders have been shouting loudest! "it's the guns".

Attacking the culture is what no democrat politician wants to do because that requires pointing the finger of blame at their constituents.

Will Robinson wrote:Attacking the culture is what no democrat politician wants to do because that requires pointing the finger of blame at their constituents.

and at this point, you veer from making a valid observation into utter, partisan silliness. See the words and deeds of the likes of Corey Booker, Michael Nutter and others before wandering off into generalizations. Generalizations are usually the path to shrunken thinking.....

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Attacking the culture is what no democrat politician wants to do because that requires pointing the finger of blame at their constituents.

and at this point, you veer from making a valid observation into utter, partisan silliness. See the words and deeds of the likes of Corey Booker, Michael Nutter and others before wandering off into generalizations. Generalizations are usually the path to shrunken thinking.....

No actually you are projecting and reacting defensively like a typical partisan yourself.

Statistically speaking, which is the proper way to gauge what type of solutions have been championed and to what degree ie; how much attention and policy proposals have been pushed into the forefront of public discourse at a national level regarding gang violence, in comparison to decades of loud mouthed Washington politicians steering the conversation AWAY from personal responsibility and instead limiting the focus on things like gun control, your evidence is completely dwarfed!


The Sandy Hook comparison stands out like an elephant in the room!
Years of averaging 1.5 times the death toll of the school shooting monthly!! And there was no giant push to do something on a national scale. And that statistic is just one city, you need to add in Oakland and L.A. and N.Y.C. etc. etc. to get a real feel for the wholesale carnage that has been largely blamed on everything except the behavior problems the thug culture has nurtured.

The politicians use the death toll as leverage to try and get more funding for their constituents, which of course buys them re-elections but they don't ever stop and say 'Enough is enough! We must stop the killing!!" Well, they say it in front of the home audience and then run through a litany rhetorical political attacks blaming all sorts of straw men. I mean their actions don't indicate they have stopping the carnage as a priority. Where is the 'Stop the Gang Violence' Bill being discussed at the same level as the Gun Control Bill? Where is the Bill period? It isn't there...

The death toll is worthy of a fricken declaration of State of Emergency...call out the national guard for crying out loud! These places are a national disaster area! They do it to stop a handful of looters in the wake of the wind blowing too hard but [40 kids a month shot dead] x [the total of urban areas] = business as usual?!? WTF?

I saw a nice summation of the problem this morning: "Banning alcohol was never the solution to the problem of drunk driving. However, no one has ever suggested that more alcohol was the solution, either."

callmeslick wrote:I saw a nice summation of the problem this morning: "Banning alcohol was never the solution to the problem of drunk driving. However, no one has ever suggested that more alcohol was the solution, either."

That is silly. I can't stop an attacker, or a drunk driver by taking a drink of liquor out of my holster.

So really it is a terrible summation.

And to expand on that, no one ever suggested banning Scotch but not bourbon was going to solve anything either.

Will Robinson wrote:That is silly. I can't stop an attacker, or a drunk driver by taking a drink of liquor out of my holster.

So really it is a terrible summation.

wow, way to miss an analogy altogether, Will.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:That is silly. I can't stop an attacker, or a drunk driver by taking a drink of liquor out of my holster.

So really it is a terrible summation.

wow, way to miss an analogy altogether, Will.

Ok. Explain it to me. If I'm wrong I can take it. What Was the analogy?

that banning something dangerous doesn't lead to a solution to using that dangerous item to harm others, but neither does the suggestion that we need more of the dangerous substance available provide a solution.

Now, to return to your original post. As I said, you have a bit of a valid point around cultural stuff being at the root of some(even much) violence in our nation. However, when you start to use such a point for a generalization about a given political party, or ideological leaning, OR if you assume that cultural issues are the only root cause of a very complex problem, you are, IMHO, going off the rails.

I have tried very hard to avoid entering this one but it has now reached a point of total BS being thrown about.

Before spouting false numbers and thinking a State of Emergency should be declared check your facts. Here is a link to the FBI crime stats data base where you can search for crime stats by state. We have 100 times the amount of assaults, robbery and rape than we do gun deaths and that is under each separate category not all 3 totaled up.


http://www.denverpost.com/fbicrimestati ... 2391929682

As for Chicago it is the major hub for drugs coming in from Canada to the United States. The person being armed in this situation stated would most likely not have changed the outcome of events. But with that said, we have the right to defend ourselves under the 2nd Amendment and this right should not be given up. Regulated better to try and prevent bad people from getting them perhaps, but a definite no to disarming 150 million people over 3 or 4 very bad events that occurred. That is simply a knee jerk reaction for politicians to get votes and retain power over us. We already gave up freedom of speech and the right to unreasonable searches in the name of National Security starting with the FISA act which we will never get back.

callmeslick wrote:that banning something dangerous doesn't lead to a solution to using that dangerous item to harm others, but neither does the suggestion that we need more of the dangerous substance available provide a solution.

And the analogy to the current gun debate as it pertains to suggesting more guns are a solution is...?

Let me show you how you are the one who got it wrong.

Where, on the gun side of the analogy it can make sense to consider guns are a potential solution to stop attacks since every year 120,000 + times per year a law abiding citizen legally uses a gun to stop a violent assault...
On the alcohol side there is no practical way to use alcohol to stop alcohol related problems.

Thus the summation you called good was silly...

And as I pointed out, to illustrate that flawed analogy's logic, the assault weapons ban is as useless as banning scotch whiskey but keeping bourbon whiskey legal in an attempt to address alcohol related problems!

Now, to return to your original post. As I said, you have a bit of a valid point around cultural stuff being at the root of some(even much) violence in our nation. However, when you start to use such a point for a generalization about a given political party, or ideological leaning, OR if you assume that cultural issues are the only root cause of a very complex problem, you are, IMHO, going off the rails.

I stand by my assertion that little effort is made to orginize against gang violence on the national scale compared to that which is made to advance gun control legislation. Anyone who watches the news will know how many times the President and the Congress have complained about guns and how little they have said and done about gang/thug killers! You can disagree all you want but I think most people are aware of that.

Cuda68 wrote: But with that said, we have the right to defend ourselves under the 2nd Amendment and this right should not be given up. Regulated better to try and prevent bad people from getting them perhaps, but a definite no to disarming 150 million people over 3 or 4 very bad events that occurred. That is simply a knee jerk reaction for politicians to get votes and retain power over us. We already gave up freedom of speech and the right to unreasonable searches in the name of National Security starting with the FISA act which we will never get back.

good post, and the highlighted part, I addressed in another thread, using Bill Maher's analogy that we have become akin to a strip club with 40 million bouncers and no strippers. Defending one's 'liberty' is sort of an inane concept when little true Liberty is left to defend.

Give everyone guns. Then, the criminals will get rockets.

Cuda68 wrote:I have tried very hard to avoid entering this one but it has now reached a point of total BS being thrown about.

Before spouting false numbers and thinking a State of Emergency should be declared check your facts.

The "state of emergency" comment was a bit of hyperbole to accent the main point.

If you question my stats please elaborate because I've looked it up and don't believe I have the numbers wrong. If I'm wrong I'd love to be corrected.

vision wrote:Give everyone guns. Then, the criminals will get rockets.

Geez, Vision. Just give everyone rockets to start with. That takes care of that. Do I have to think of everything around here?