|
MasterCaneman -> RE: Lets have another gun - antigun thread... (9/7/2013 4:44:55 PM)
|
>Sighs< The problem with Chicago and D.C. is not guns-they're just a symptom of a disease. The violence is a direct outgrowth of a 50 year old social science experiment that they refuse to admit is a failure. What you see is what happens in an entitlement culture in the US. Single mothers, welfare, a disappearing industrial base, and the intentional exclusion of positive male role models in the black community.
Add to this that Chicago has ALWAYS had a gang and criminal culture owing to it's role in history. It was the hub for railroads, lake shipping, and stockyards. The criminal underclass is deeply established there. I know there'll be some outraged Chicagoans decrying this statement, but there it is. Arming everybody would accomplish a little, but not much. Disarming only means that the law-abiding are left helpless (they already pretty much are there now). The criminals by definition don't follow the law, so the law as it stands is pointless.
If they start really incarcerating people on firearms charges, everyone will freak out and scream racism, because the majority of the perpetrators will be black. So they punt all the time,let them make bail, probation, diversion, etc. which is why you read about guys with numerous pending felonies out on the street raising hell because they know there's no place to put them.
The problem with "more gun laws" is, there's already a shit-ton of them on the books they don't bother to enforce unless its politically expedient. Most are little more than grandstand gestures meant only to garner votes for some pol's next election. The few that do make sense end up getting ignored because Mayor So-and-So or Governor Whozzit or Senator Whatersername wrote up an awesome "new" law guaranteed to "end the scourge of violence in our time/city/state"
They do absolutely nothing to address the root causes of the crime and the culture around it because it would be contrary to their interests, which begin and end sole with "staying in office as long as possible". The Mayor of that town (any one you care to name) really could've given a wet shit about the violence except for how he could play that for votes. If they brought back jobs, they're afraid that the balance of power could swing to the right, and that is simply unacceptable for the rulers of that city and county.
Workers (even union workers) tend to vote more conservative as a group, irregardless of race, age, or political leanings. The current incarnation of Chicago political machine politics is geared towards playing to a victim mentality. Single moms on public assistance, along with their moms and grandmothers are a sure pool of rock-solid votes as long as the checks and benefits keep flowing, and it's nothing to skim some off of that gravy boat for the pols themselves.
Give the dregs there jobs and hope, and they'll start thinking and doing for themselves. The Democratic machine does not want that. That's why Chicago ended up a war zone.
While it's not a solid citation, I present:
Crime, Guns, and Entitlement
Culture of Poverty
History of Gangs in Chicago
In summing things up, disarming the law-abiding is not the solution for Chicago and similar cities ills. Rather, it lies in the removal of a major political party from power, the reintroduction of heavy industry to the area, and a wholesale reordering of an entire community's perception of reasonable expectations of life. And the chance of that happening are essentially nil.
If they banned all guns tomorrow, the gangs would have no trouble getting them, and probably getting the very types of weapons liberals fear the most. Instead of Hi-Points and Kel-Tecs, the gang-bangers would be sporting military-grade AKs and other ComBloc equipment, because our Chinese and Russian friends would have no problem in making money off of this arrangement.
|
|
|
|
