-fish-
Footballguy
funny, cause i think the same of you. only my arguments are based on facts.Dude stay down. You look foolish.
Last edited by a moderator:
funny, cause i think the same of you. only my arguments are based on facts.Dude stay down. You look foolish.
@ekbeats - can you answer this?I think fish has been pretty clear about his thoughts. just curious why specifically others say that Chicago's laws are so strict or draconian.
All I see is a blanket statement to that effect, but not sure I've seen reasons why people think they are some of the strictest in the country.
no, they don't.From what I am reading, the laws that Chicago has doesn't apply even to it's surrounding suburbs? Is that correct?
Just curious what the point really is then. Was it some pissing contest between Chicago mayor and IL SC or something?no, they don't.
the NRA talking point is "Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country, but they have high gun violence.". The truth is that the city had a handgun ban, it was overturned, and gun violence increased. They still have an assault weapons ban, which is unusual for a city. So they have "strict gun laws." But most of the gun violence is handguns, which aren't really regulated anymore.Just curious what the point really is then. Was it some pissing contest between Chicago mayor and IL SC or something?
I am having trouble understanding this from either side - why people would think it would be effective and why the opposition would point to this as being a failure of strict laws.
I haven't seen a self own like yours in a long time. Good work.facts are hard for some people
Helpful hint - when @FairWarningtalked about Chicago having strict gun laws he wasn’t talking relative to other cities in Illinois, and he wasn’t talking about a comparison over time. Chicago is subject to Illinois gun laws, and a simple Google will show you that Illinois consistently ranks as having strict gun laws relative to other states - almost always in the top 10. Like I said, stay down on this one. In your job you get paid for arguing a failed case. In here you just lose credibility.funny, cause i think the same of you. only my arguments are based on facts.
this is just sadly mistaken. if you're talking about city laws, you're comparing to other cities, not states. the Chicago trope is false, a and Illinois laws aren't particularly more strict than any other non-southern states. you keep trying hard, but your facts just don't support the arguments.Helpful hint - when @FairWarningtalked about Chicago having strict gun laws he wasn’t talking relative to other cities in Illinois, and he wasn’t talking about a comparison over time. Chicago is subject to Illinois gun laws, and a simple Google will show you that Illinois consistently ranks as having strict gun laws relative to other states - almost always in the top 10. Like I said, stay down on this one. In your job you get paid for arguing a failed case. In here you just lose credibility.
His point is wrong though. He also had no problem bringing up Austin’s mass shootinf but neglected the mass shooting of 10 in CHICAGO last night.I take fish's point to be that Chicago had even stricter laws, and predictably shootings went up when they became less strict (although stricter after that than other areas and cities)
Did anyone try to say Chicago softened their gun control laws last year? Or did you make that up as a straw man? You're the one falsely saying Chicago has strict gun laws. Am i surprised there are a lot of handgun shootings in Chicago since 2010? Absolutely not.His point is wrong though. He also had no problem bringing up Austin’s mass shootinf but neglected the mass shooting of 10 in CHICAGO last night.
shootinngs went up in Chicago in the last year because of BLM and defunding police, not any particular softening laws.
so you are saying shootings didn't go up starting after he claims? (was it 2008?) this should be a pretty easy stat to verify, right?His point is wrong though. He also had no problem bringing up Austin’s mass shootinf but neglected the mass shooting of 10 in CHICAGO last night.
shootinngs went up in Chicago in the last year because of BLM and defunding police, not any particular softening laws.
Texas' statewide law allowed permitless carry statewide. It supposedly will reduce crime.His point is wrong though. He also had no problem bringing up Austin’s mass shootinf but neglected the mass shooting of 10 in CHICAGO last night.
shootinngs went up in Chicago in the last year because of BLM and defunding police, not any particular softening laws.
2010so you are saying shootings didn't go up starting after he claims? (was it 2008?) this should be a pretty easy stat to verify, right?
there are no regulations really anymore on handguns in Chicago ?-fish- said:But most of the gun violence is handguns, which aren't really regulated anymore.
I mean, he’s got a point. Prayer works, but it also often involves us doing something that God has said to do. The nothing done so far is not helping.Pulse shooting survivor Brandon Wolf to CNN:
"I am existentially exhausted. I am so tired of statements. I am so tired of hashtags and thoughts and prayers. I am so tired of archaic Senate procedure being used as an excuse to do nothing while people in our communities are dying."
Has anyone suggested that as a solution to gun violence? That's your response to four mass murders? Repulsive.I’ve got an idea - let’s defund the police!
no more repulsive than using those tragedies for political gain to ban guns that are used in less murders than knives/hammersHas anyone suggested that as a solution to gun violence? That's your response to four mass murders? Repulsive.
2nd request for link please to support the above-fish- said:But most of the gun violence is handguns, which aren't really regulated anymore.
that won't make headline news, not good agenda materialAlabama and Georgia shootings racially motivated
A 39-year-old man accused of shooting and wounding five people in Alabama and Georgia told police his assaults were racially motivated, and he was targeting white men, a detective testified Monday.
“I’ll have Things You Won’t See on CNN for $500 Alex”.Alabama and Georgia shootings racially motivated
A 39-year-old man accused of shooting and wounding five people in Alabama and Georgia told police his assaults were racially motivated, and he was targeting white men, a detective testified Monday.
he still shot people, right?“I’ll have Things You Won’t See on CNN for $500 Alex”.
Actually, before sho and squid come in here saying that CNN did cover this, they only covered the initial shooting and not today’s learnings about the killer’s anti-white racism. Not a word about it. Yeah, no Liberal bias right tim?
its am amazing things to watch isn't it ?Love the obsession about what CNN does and doesn't cover from the right.
Wouldn't know. We all know what the cable shows bring to the table, so I don't bother watching. Some of you guys seem to enjoy being angry and bitter, so I guess knock yourself out by watching CNN and #####ing about what they cover.its am amazing things to watch isn't it ?
CNN is a core news source for the left as Fox is for the rightWouldn't know. We all know what the cable shows bring to the table, so I don't bother watching. Some of you guys seem to enjoy being angry and bitter, so I guess knock yourself out by watching CNN and #####ing about what they cover.
Understanding both sides of the aisle does not require you watching Fox and CNN.CNN is a core news source for the left as Fox is for the right
I'm not so much angry and bitter, I pay attention to what's happening and try to understand the WHY behind it all
can't understand anything if I only pay attention to one side
I think by ignoring the most popular media sites I'd lose a good bit of insight on the liberal and conservative ways that are being distributedUnderstanding both sides of the aisle does not require you watching Fox and CNN.
You know the why - it's mostly clickbait journalism. Most admit here that neither are a good source of news, but still people like you continue to use them. Who cares if they are popular if they aren't good sources of news? So in your pursuit of "understanding", you are freely admitting to wasting your time consuming stuff that isn't great info.
Lol - by going to the sites to get an understanding what bs is being fed to the public, you are mostly consuming the same bs.I think by ignoring the most popular media sites I'd lose a good bit of insight on the liberal and conservative ways that are being distributed
if I go to a site that has 4,000 viewers, that's not going to really give me an idea of what is being fed to the public as opposed to a site that has 40,000,000 viewers
I go to a lot of sites though, not just 2
probably trueLol - by going to the sites to get an understanding what bs is being fed to the public, you are mostly consuming the same bs.
I know- you listed the other "news" sites you also use, and it makes sense and correlates to your posting style
You think there's no foundation for the opinion for people to be for gun restrictions?its my opinion that all the BS being fed is the source of the anti-gun hysteria that has no logical or reasonable foundation
what I find amusing is this is the guy that seems to be strongly arguing the position that if you watch and listen to violent things you will be violent. you know- evidently you become what you surround yourself with.A new deflection. we can't justify all of these mass shootings, so we'll change the subject to media bias even though nobody was discussing it.
watching how media reports things isn't the same as digesting/idolizing/glamourizingwhat I find amusing is this is the guy that seems to be strongly arguing the position that if you watch and listen to violent things you will be violent. you know- evidently you become what you surround yourself with.
So following that logic, what happens when he surrounds himself and consumes a bunch of misinformation and click bait crap produced to rile him up and make him angry and paranoid about the other side?
is that what you think CNN is ?happens when he surrounds himself and consumes a bunch of misinformation and click bait crap produced to rile him up
I think that speaks for itself.what I find amusing is this is the guy that seems to be strongly arguing the position that if you watch and listen to violent things you will be violent. you know- evidently you become what you surround yourself with.
So following that logic, what happens when he surrounds himself and consumes a bunch of misinformation and click bait crap produced to rile him up and make him angry and paranoid about the other side?
pretty much, especially the cable side.is that what you think CNN is ?
pretty much. it's probably a big reason why some of the posters post like they do- other side is terrible, doom and gloom, their coming for our stuff, etc, etc.I think that speaks for itself.
Right - focus on the method rather than what gave rise to the act. He was a convicted felon who stole a handgun. He was also a racist who hated white people. What do you propose we do about that?he still shot people, right?
Other than secure storage laws, make it more difficult for mentally ill former felons to obtain guns by taking as many as possible out of circulation, creating a national gun registry, allowing the ATF to create a searchable database, institute buy-back programs, close private sale and gunshow loopholes and adopt red flag laws.Right - focus on the method rather than what gave rise to the act. He was a convicted felon who stole a handgun. He was also a racist who hated white people. What do you propose we do about that?