Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

"Value can’t ever really be “determined based on supply and demand.” Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy."

This is something I think about a lot. If you stop and take a look around: how often is it really that one is paid for/compensated fairly FOR the amount of work/labor they perform? Whatever scale this is built upon is beyond faulty. Therefore the free market is a sham in many respects because it rewards grandly those who perform basically no labor or contribute nothing to society. Ironic then that main edict of socialism is that one reaps from society EXACTLY what they put into society. It strikes me as suicidal to believe in a system that values position and privileged over function in society. This is nothing new of course, but it something that I could never defend.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

This is something I think about a lot. If you stop and take a look around: how often is it really that one is paid for/compensated fairly FOR the amount of work/labor they perform? Whatever scale this is built upon is beyond faulty. Therefore the free market is a sham in many respects because it rewards grandly those who perform basically no labor or contribute nothing to society.

Yep, you're echoing Marx here whether you like it or not!   

I'm not entirely on board with all of Marx but I do agree with this point, that the capitalist system is necessarily exploitative in order for it to function and inevitably leads, as John Stuart Mill understood, to a world of unequal distribution of wealth and capital.

Ironic then that main edict of socialism is that one reaps from society EXACTLY what they put into society.

It is difficult to measure it exactly, but as close as possible. Seems to me that this is the fairest possible system.

[Jay]

The crack epidemic could have been easily solved by legalizing crack. No use trying to legislate when people are going to do it anyway. Just allow folks the tools to defend themselves.

This is perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever read on this board.

[Jason]

The crack epidemic could have been easily solved by legalizing crack. No use trying to legislate when people are going to do it anyway. Just allow folks the tools to defend themselves.

This is perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever read on this board.

How so? I'd say it's logical. No amount of laws will stop people from doing stupid things.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The crack epidemic could have been easily solved by legalizing crack. No use trying to legislate when people are going to do it anyway. Just allow folks the tools to defend themselves.

This is perhaps the most asinine thing I've ever read on this board.

You must have skipped my posts then.

[hypehat]

Rocknroll, I can't keep up/contribute with these politics threads because I hate talking about it on the net, but you are absolutely killing it ITT as usual.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

I would just like you to know that, from the perspective of a society where guns are an alien concept, talk like this sounds absolutely insane.

So...in your society you favor criminals over those who abide by the law.

I don't favour killing anybody. There are many ways to deal with criminals in your house rather than shooting them, and when I got robbed I didn't think the way to deal with the dude rooting around my kitchen was to pull out my .44 and blast him away. And I got rid of him, nothing was stolen, and because I didn't have a pistol and he didn't have an automatic weapon, no-one is dead! I must love criminals, right?


It really does make it SO much easier to live in an impoverished inner city area without the worry that everyone could walk into a supermarket and buy a gun. Did you ever think about that?

Yep. A society with less access to guns makes it far less likely that that criminal in your house is armed.

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime. And "gun-free zones" in concealed-carry States
(like movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado) have proven to be government-enabled death traps for the law-abiding.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.

And "gun-free zones" in concealed-carry States
(like movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado) have proven to be government-enabled death traps for the law-abiding.

In fact, just about everywhere is a death trap in the United States, including one's home, precisely because what hasn't occurred in the US are tighter restrictions on gun-access. You can have all the "gun-free zones" you want, but as long as people can still easily get ahold of weapons, you'll have firearm related deaths.

[guitarfool2002]

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.

I have to call a flag on the play...



Those stats on Chicago are insignificant at best,total nonsense at worst, and it leaves me wondering what sources those are coming from.

Using 1992 as a statistic in 2012 on anything sociopolitical relating to a major US city? Seriously? I used to visit family just outside North Philly, still considered in the Northeast but just a few blocks between what was a dividing line between safe and not-so-safe (sorry to be brutally honest, that was the reality). Those neighborhoods in 1992 were somewhat safe...as of 2012 I wouldn't park a car on any of those streets due to the threats of violence and crime, and whatever family was there in '92 packed up and got the hell out. The whole area changed, and it was a radical change that happened within a matter of 10 years or so. The tipping point for one of my relatives was when she was walking home with groceries from a neighborhood store she had gone to for years, and found herself on a street where two rival pieces of sh*t in the drug trade opened fire on each other from either side of the street, and bullets flew everywhere. Fortunately she was not hurt, but that was the end of the road for her living in the "old neighborhood" and her family moved her out.

1992 stats mean nothing to the current debate.

Now, onto Chicago's crime rate, murder rate, etc.

As of today there have been 308 murders so far this year in Chicago. We have just started the 8th month of this year, that averages out to 44 per month, more than one murder on average every day. This murder rate is up nearly 27 percent from last year's totals. Some are projecting that by the end of the year, the total number of murders could be around 500.

In July 2012, Chicago had 49 homicides...which they say is one of the *lowest* monthly totals in 25 years. is this something to be proud of or tout as a victory of some kind? 49 people were *killed* in a month's time in a single city, and that's the lowest such figure in 25 years?

Tell me that this in any way shows something positive on what's going on relating to crime and murder in Chicago.

And a majority of these crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons, wanted felons with active criminal warrants, or people who have no legal right under even the less-strict gun laws to purchase, own, or have access to in any way a firearm. And a majority of the guns are not "legal" guns, and were either black-market purchases or thefts. The guns used in this street-level crime are not the type which you'd go to a gun shop and fill out a background check to be cleared by the government to own that gun.

I just heard Philly police commissioner Ramsey on a radio interview yesterday. Philly is plagued with gang and drug related crime. As much as you could enact any number of new gun laws, those laws would not have much effect on the people who are living in spite of the law in general, and living where the gang is the way of life and the drug trade is the source of income...and it's a life being lived on the basis of illegal activity.

Tell me a new gun law would break up the gang problem in Philly. Certain organized gangs have access to guns smuggled from Asia, Latin America, etc...they are as organized and perhaps as tough to penetrate as the mafia was at various points in history. Gangs from LA, Latin gangs, Asian gangs...some very powerful, well-known gangs from across the US have been setting up shop in other areas like Philly, and organizing more chapters to expand their business. Laws mean *nothing* to the gangs.

So explain again how crime is somehow down in Chicago, or that there is anything positive to spin about 308 murders so far this year in that city alone?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.

I have to call a flag on the play...



Those stats on Chicago are insignificant at best,total nonsense at worst, and it leaves me wondering what sources those are coming from.

Using 1992 as a statistic in 2012 on anything sociopolitical relating to a major US city? Seriously? I used to visit family just outside North Philly, still considered in the Northeast but just a few blocks between what was a dividing line between safe and not-so-safe (sorry to be brutally honest, that was the reality). Those neighborhoods in 1992 were somewhat safe...as of 2012 I wouldn't park a car on any of those streets due to the threats of violence and crime, and whatever family was there in '92 packed up and got the hell out. The whole area changed, and it was a radical change that happened within a matter of 10 years or so. The tipping point for one of my relatives was when she was walking home with groceries from a neighborhood store she had gone to for years, and found herself on a street where two rival pieces of sh*t in the drug trade opened fire on each other from either side of the street, and bullets flew everywhere. Fortunately she was not hurt, but that was the end of the road for her living in the "old neighborhood" and her family moved her out.

1992 stats mean nothing to the current debate.

Now, onto Chicago's crime rate, murder rate, etc.

As of today there have been 308 murders so far this year in Chicago. We have just started the 8th month of this year, that averages out to 44 per month, more than one murder on average every day. This murder rate is up nearly 27 percent from last year's totals. Some are projecting that by the end of the year, the total number of murders could be around 500.

In July 2012, Chicago had 49 homicides...which they say is one of the *lowest* monthly totals in 25 years. is this something to be proud of or tout as a victory of some kind? 49 people were *killed* in a month's time in a single city, and that's the lowest such figure in 25 years?

Tell me that this in any way shows something positive on what's going on relating to crime and murder in Chicago.

And a majority of these crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons, wanted felons with active criminal warrants, or people who have no legal right under even the less-strict gun laws to purchase, own, or have access to in any way a firearm. And a majority of the guns are not "legal" guns, and were either black-market purchases or thefts. The guns used in this street-level crime are not the type which you'd go to a gun shop and fill out a background check to be cleared by the government to own that gun.

I just heard Philly police commissioner Ramsey on a radio interview yesterday. Philly is plagued with gang and drug related crime. As much as you could enact any number of new gun laws, those laws would not have much effect on the people who are living in spite of the law in general, and living where the gang is the way of life and the drug trade is the source of income...and it's a life being lived on the basis of illegal activity.

Tell me a new gun law would break up the gang problem in Philly. Certain organized gangs have access to guns smuggled from Asia, Latin America, etc...they are as organized and perhaps as tough to penetrate as the mafia was at various points in history. Gangs from LA, Latin gangs, Asian gangs...some very powerful, well-known gangs from across the US have been setting up shop in other areas like Philly, and organizing more chapters to expand their business. Laws mean *nothing* to the gangs.

So explain again how crime is somehow down in Chicago, or that there is anything positive to spin about 308 murders so far this year in that city alone?

I'm not sure whose post you are reading but surely it can't be mine since you haven't grasped the slightest inkling of what I've said. The one thing that you brought up that had the slightest character of an engagement with my points is the part where you questioned my statistics, which you can find here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

and here:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Looser-Gun-Laws-More-Murders-164748976.html

and here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html

Otherwise, I suggest you go back and re-read what I actually wrote and maybe even take a look at the point I was responding to, in order to discover that what you write in your own post reinforces what I say against that point.

[guitarfool2002]

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.

I have to call a flag on the play...



Those stats on Chicago are insignificant at best,total nonsense at worst, and it leaves me wondering what sources those are coming from.

Using 1992 as a statistic in 2012 on anything sociopolitical relating to a major US city? Seriously? I used to visit family just outside North Philly, still considered in the Northeast but just a few blocks between what was a dividing line between safe and not-so-safe (sorry to be brutally honest, that was the reality). Those neighborhoods in 1992 were somewhat safe...as of 2012 I wouldn't park a car on any of those streets due to the threats of violence and crime, and whatever family was there in '92 packed up and got the hell out. The whole area changed, and it was a radical change that happened within a matter of 10 years or so. The tipping point for one of my relatives was when she was walking home with groceries from a neighborhood store she had gone to for years, and found herself on a street where two rival pieces of sh*t in the drug trade opened fire on each other from either side of the street, and bullets flew everywhere. Fortunately she was not hurt, but that was the end of the road for her living in the "old neighborhood" and her family moved her out.

1992 stats mean nothing to the current debate.

Now, onto Chicago's crime rate, murder rate, etc.

As of today there have been 308 murders so far this year in Chicago. We have just started the 8th month of this year, that averages out to 44 per month, more than one murder on average every day. This murder rate is up nearly 27 percent from last year's totals. Some are projecting that by the end of the year, the total number of murders could be around 500.

In July 2012, Chicago had 49 homicides...which they say is one of the *lowest* monthly totals in 25 years. is this something to be proud of or tout as a victory of some kind? 49 people were *killed* in a month's time in a single city, and that's the lowest such figure in 25 years?

Tell me that this in any way shows something positive on what's going on relating to crime and murder in Chicago.

And a majority of these crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons, wanted felons with active criminal warrants, or people who have no legal right under even the less-strict gun laws to purchase, own, or have access to in any way a firearm. And a majority of the guns are not "legal" guns, and were either black-market purchases or thefts. The guns used in this street-level crime are not the type which you'd go to a gun shop and fill out a background check to be cleared by the government to own that gun.

I just heard Philly police commissioner Ramsey on a radio interview yesterday. Philly is plagued with gang and drug related crime. As much as you could enact any number of new gun laws, those laws would not have much effect on the people who are living in spite of the law in general, and living where the gang is the way of life and the drug trade is the source of income...and it's a life being lived on the basis of illegal activity.

Tell me a new gun law would break up the gang problem in Philly. Certain organized gangs have access to guns smuggled from Asia, Latin America, etc...they are as organized and perhaps as tough to penetrate as the mafia was at various points in history. Gangs from LA, Latin gangs, Asian gangs...some very powerful, well-known gangs from across the US have been setting up shop in other areas like Philly, and organizing more chapters to expand their business. Laws mean *nothing* to the gangs.

So explain again how crime is somehow down in Chicago, or that there is anything positive to spin about 308 murders so far this year in that city alone?

I'm not sure whose post you are reading but surely it can't be mine since you haven't grasped the slightest inkling of what I've said. The one thing that you brought up that had the slightest character of an engagement with my points is the part where you questioned my statistics, which you can find here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

and here:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Looser-Gun-Laws-More-Murders-164748976.html

and here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934323.html

Otherwise, I suggest you go back and re-read what I actually wrote and maybe even take a look at the point I was responding to, in order to discover that what you write in your own post reinforces what I say against that point.

You're pulling from the same playbook as you've done in the past, with all due respect and no malice intended. I did read, re-read, and quote directly your post. Honestly I've seen you reply with that same line of "you're not understanding my post", and it's distracting from the actual issue.

Your first statement of fact: "In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans."

This is irrelevant, quoted in part to argue a point against the fact that Chicago is in the midst of a murder epidemic in 2012 despite gun control advocates and all of the attempts to shift the blame away from the root cause, which is ultimately the person actually pulling the trigger of a gun, or pulling the knife, to commit a majority of those murders.

What I also find irrelevant are the three sources quoted: One is from a blogger, one is a Wikipedia entry, and the other is a page showing statistics from 2005. In the realm of a big city which is changing year to year, showing stats from 2005 does nothing to address what is going on in 2012.

And that is the main point: 2012...308 murders so far, and there are 5 months remaining in the year. 49 people killed in the month of July alone, and they're almost celebrating the fact that it's a lower rate? It ignores the issue at hand, which is the murders in 2012 are the problem which needs to be addressed. It's not about more or less than 5, 10, or 25 years ago, it's not about stats from 2005, and it smacks of wanting to draw attention away from the current problem of homicides in Chicago in 2012.

Is the issue of those 308 homicides as of August 2 2012 going to be affected at all by comparing that number to previous years, previous decades, or even at this point previous generations of Chicago residents? It's designed purely to take the spotlight of blame away from those persons committing the crimes, whether they use a gun, a knife, or if they get behind the wheel of a car after getting drunk and kill an innocent person on the road.

My issue is the gun in and of itself is no more to blame than a knife, or than either the booze or the vehicle in a drunk driving death. It's the person committing the crime.

I value a debate, I enjoy the back-and-forth, but at the same time the tactic of saying "you don't understand what I wrote, re-read it" has been played in the past. Let's talk about the present issue of homicides in Chicago, and start placing the blame on the individuals responsible for those homicides instead of blaming objects.

The numbers I quoted were from Chicago TV station WLS, the news report on ABC 7, reported earlier today - current, factual numbers. The headline is a 'drop in homicides', and I think it's a pure diversionary tactic to get away from the issue that 40+ homicides in one month in one city is obviously too many, and no amount of gun control laws or comparisons to previous decades will solve that current problem. And the various solutions which have been tried have not worked - anyone with half a brain can look at the number 308 and realize something is not working.

How difficult is it in a civilized society to realize that it is simply *wrong* at the most basic level of society to shoot up a city block in the name of a gang, a drug turf war, or any rationale beyond the conclusion that anyone who would choose to shoot up a city block is a piece of sh*t. If a person is incapable of realizing that such an action is wrong...would that person most likely already owning an illegal gun and engaged in illegal activity care anything about or be affected at all by a strict gun control law? I doubt it.

Ultimately the people who are breaking the laws now will continue to ignore and break any future laws on guns, and those gun owners who are following the law will continue to follow the laws yet will continue to be indirectly blamed for the homicide problem. That, to me, is wrong.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You're pulling from the same playbook as you've done in the past, with all due respect and no malice intended. I did read, re-read, and quote directly your post. Honestly I've seen you reply with that same line of "you're not understanding my post", and it's distracting from the actual issue.

Well, what’s distracting for me is having to re-word my points and the points of others. See below:

Your first statement of fact: "In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans."

This is irrelevant, quoted in part to argue a point against the fact that Chicago is in the midst of a murder epidemic in 2012 despite gun control advocates and all of the attempts to shift the blame away from the root cause, which is ultimately the person actually pulling the trigger of a gun, or pulling the knife, to commit a majority of those murders.

It’s not irrelevant if the person I was responding to argues that less guns equals more crime in Chicago. In that case, examining crime rates since the gun ban (1982) and assault weapons ban (1992) were put in place is not only relevant, it’s the only logical thing to do. It’s not as if the gun laws in Chicago were put into place this year or even last year.  Had the gun ban been put in place December 31st, 2011, I would agree that we should be focusing on the crime happening this year. But since that's not the case, I'm afraid I don't understand why you need me to talk about it.

What I also find irrelevant are the three sources quoted: One is from a blogger, one is a Wikipedia entry, and the other is a page showing statistics from 2005. In the realm of a big city which is changing year to year, showing stats from 2005 does nothing to address what is going on in 2012.

Well, take it from someone who has a lot more experience with scholarly research than you – the sources are fine. Wikipedia is a perfectly valid and legitimate resource. The only time it isn’t is when someone is using the unverified information on the site. I wasn’t. The statistics that I pulled from the site were sourced to FBI documents and Chicago Police Department news releases. I can’t think of any more legitimate sources of information than that. If this was an academic essay rather than an internet forum, I would go the extra step and quote directly from the sourced material and cite it and there would be absolutely zero problems with it. But this isn't an academic essay and since the material itself is verifiable and from legitimate sources, I never would have assumed in my wildest dreams that anybody would consider it problematic.

I would agree that simply taking a blogger at his or her word is dangerous if you can’t verify the evidence. This is why I posted the statistics from 2005 to show that the blogger’s word is indeed verified by documentary evidence. Now, again, the year shouldn’t be the issue here. We’re talking about a gun ban that was put into place thirty years ago. Now, the blogger was clearly using more updated statistics that I couldn't find doing a quick search but given that Chicago's homicide rate is up less that 40% from last year (which, yes, is still a bad thing) I can't imagine they would have bursted their way to the top of that list, especially when their murder rate was quite small in comparison to, say, Baltimore, which had a murder rate of 42.0 in comparison to Chicago's 15.6. The spike in homicide rates this year is hardly enough to put them into that category, which is why the findings of the blogger are impossible to really seriously question once you see where Chicago stood in relation to other cities a mere seven years ago.

And that is the main point: 2012...308 murders so far, and there are 5 months remaining in the year. 49 people killed in the month of July alone, and they're almost celebrating the fact that it's a lower rate? It ignores the issue at hand, which is the murders in 2012 are the problem which needs to be addressed. It's not about more or less than 5, 10, or 25 years ago, it's not about stats from 2005, and it smacks of wanting to draw attention away from the current problem of homicides in Chicago in 2012.

Erm, you do realize the poster I was responding to never mentioned “the current problem of homicides in 2012.” He said that “Less (legal) guns = more crime.” But, again, not to sound like a broken record but unfortunately I have to, there have been strict gun laws in Chicago for decades. So I’m not “drawing attention away from the current problem” since the issue was not really raised until you brought it up. Now if you want me to address the utterly inane premise that the gun ban in 1982 has nothing to do with what amounts to a declining crime rate and a declining homicide rate but is somehow directly responsible for the crime in 2012, you’re right I won’t do that because it’s stupid. Now, I don’t particularly believe you are actually asking me to do that – I decided instead, to respect you, and assume that you simply hadn’t been following the conversation.

Now I’m perfectly aware that crime and homicides occur in Chicago and I’m perfectly aware that it’s a significant problem and it is important to deal with it, which is why I spoke about it in the thread above, noting that if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes. Again, like I said in that thread, I don’t think the criminal activity and the homicides in Chicago would be alleviated by lifting the ban on guns and assaulted weapons, as is made obvious by pre-ban statistics. Again, that’s where those statistics do come in handy, for that particular discussion, but it is clear you have no interest in that discussion, though why your lack of interest should lead you to divert the conversation we were having is, quite frankly, beyond me.

The numbers I quoted were from Chicago TV station WLS, the news report on ABC 7, reported earlier today - current, factual numbers. The headline is a 'drop in homicides', and I think it's a pure diversionary tactic to get away from the issue that 40+ homicides in one month in one city is obviously too many, and no amount of gun control laws or comparisons to previous decades will solve that current problem. And the various solutions which have been tried have not worked - anyone with half a brain can look at the number 308 and realize something is not working.

How difficult is it in a civilized society to realize that it is simply *wrong* at the most basic level of society to shoot up a city block in the name of a gang, a drug turf war, or any rationale beyond the conclusion that anyone who would choose to shoot up a city block is a piece of sh*t. If a person is incapable of realizing that such an action is wrong...would that person most likely already owning an illegal gun and engaged in illegal activity care anything about or be affected at all by a strict gun control law? I doubt it.

Ultimately the people who are breaking the laws now will continue to ignore and break any future laws on guns, and those gun owners who are following the law will continue to follow the laws yet will continue to be indirectly blamed for the homicide problem. That, to me, is wrong.

There, I repasted so people have the benefit of seeing your points twice. But, I’m afraid, it has nothing to do with what I was talking about with the exception of one point: "would that person most likely already owning an illegal gun and engaged in illegal activity care anything about or be affected at all by a strict gun control law?" Again, that's a question, I've already sufficiently answered. The rest of it has no bearing on my points at all.

[GreatUrduPoet]

A total nonsense statement unsupported by reality, at least here in the U.S.A. Are you familiar with the gun laws
and crime statistics in Chicago? Less (legal) guns = more crime.

In fact, Chicago has been experiencing not only a decline in overall crime since 1992 but also a sharp decrease in homicides with lower homicide rates than Chicago experienced in the 1960s. I use 1992 because that's when the ban on assault weapons took place but they've been going down since 1982's handgun bans. You do still see a great deal of gun related fatalities in Chicago because of gang crime and it seems to me that gangs can carry out their criminal activity precisely because of their access to guns, which are still easily accessed outside the city and criminal outfits have always been able to arm themselves in places where it is easy to access guns. Again the issue here is access and there is plenty of access to guns for Chicago gangs. Like I said, if you look at places with less access, you find less gun-realted deaths. Furthermore, Chicago's murder rates are far lower than major American cities with looser gun laws, such as Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelpha, etc.

Now, regardless of this, I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime. There are lots of reasons why crime happens and many of those reasons have nothing to do with whether or not the population at large is armed. Crime is typically class related and if you have both a class of extreme wealth and a class of extreme poverty, then you will see a lot of criminal activity coming from both of those classes, though we're really only supposed to hate the crime that poor people commit. But, while I'm certainly unconvinced that getting rid of guns will get rid of crime, I'm equally if not even less convinced that you get rid of crime by arming the population because it seems to me the overwhelming majority of cases show exactly what I said, a society with less access to guns results in fewer firearm related deaths, and Chicago is no exception in this regard.

I have to call a flag on the play...



Those stats on Chicago are insignificant at best,total nonsense at worst, and it leaves me wondering what sources those are coming from.

Using 1992 as a statistic in 2012 on anything sociopolitical relating to a major US city? Seriously? I used to visit family just outside North Philly, still considered in the Northeast but just a few blocks between what was a dividing line between safe and not-so-safe (sorry to be brutally honest, that was the reality). Those neighborhoods in 1992 were somewhat safe...as of 2012 I wouldn't park a car on any of those streets due to the threats of violence and crime, and whatever family was there in '92 packed up and got the hell out. The whole area changed, and it was a radical change that happened within a matter of 10 years or so. The tipping point for one of my relatives was when she was walking home with groceries from a neighborhood store she had gone to for years, and found herself on a street where two rival pieces of sh*t in the drug trade opened fire on each other from either side of the street, and bullets flew everywhere. Fortunately she was not hurt, but that was the end of the road for her living in the "old neighborhood" and her family moved her out.

1992 stats mean nothing to the current debate.

Now, onto Chicago's crime rate, murder rate, etc.

As of today there have been 308 murders so far this year in Chicago. We have just started the 8th month of this year, that averages out to 44 per month, more than one murder on average every day. This murder rate is up nearly 27 percent from last year's totals. Some are projecting that by the end of the year, the total number of murders could be around 500.

In July 2012, Chicago had 49 homicides...which they say is one of the *lowest* monthly totals in 25 years. is this something to be proud of or tout as a victory of some kind? 49 people were *killed* in a month's time in a single city, and that's the lowest such figure in 25 years?

Tell me that this in any way shows something positive on what's going on relating to crime and murder in Chicago.

And a majority of these crimes involving guns are committed by convicted felons, wanted felons with active criminal warrants, or people who have no legal right under even the less-strict gun laws to purchase, own, or have access to in any way a firearm. And a majority of the guns are not "legal" guns, and were either black-market purchases or thefts. The guns used in this street-level crime are not the type which you'd go to a gun shop and fill out a background check to be cleared by the government to own that gun.

I just heard Philly police commissioner Ramsey on a radio interview yesterday. Philly is plagued with gang and drug related crime. As much as you could enact any number of new gun laws, those laws would not have much effect on the people who are living in spite of the law in general, and living where the gang is the way of life and the drug trade is the source of income...and it's a life being lived on the basis of illegal activity.

Tell me a new gun law would break up the gang problem in Philly. Certain organized gangs have access to guns smuggled from Asia, Latin America, etc...they are as organized and perhaps as tough to penetrate as the mafia was at various points in history. Gangs from LA, Latin gangs, Asian gangs...some very powerful, well-known gangs from across the US have been setting up shop in other areas like Philly, and organizing more chapters to expand their business. Laws mean *nothing* to the gangs.

So explain again how crime is somehow down in Chicago, or that there is anything positive to spin about 308 murders so far this year in that city alone?

Stellar post guitarfool...but I've stopped responding to "R&R" myself. I've found that it's an exhausting waste of time to try to argue with doctrinaire Marxists. What surprises me is to find such a choice specimen of  V. Lenin's "useful idiot" brigade on a Beach Boys site (but I suppose that their 'Smile/Smiley Smile' period is politically-correct for Lefties to enjoy now that it's been canonized by all the mainstream pundits who previously ignored it). Dear 'Rock & Roll'...please correct my Lenin reference. Please...please...pretty please. I'm waiting.

[guitarfool2002]

Well, take it from someone who has a lot more experience with scholarly research than you – the sources are fine.

That's all I needed to read. It's been fun, but I'm not getting into a pissing match and that's just childish to play that card. And I don't need someone waving academic credentials in my face when I never questioned anything personal but rather questioned the sources.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, take it from someone who has a lot more experience with scholarly research than you – the sources are fine.

That's all I needed to read. It's been fun, but I'm not getting into a pissing match and that's just childish to play that card. And I don't need someone waving academic credentials in my face when I never questioned anything personal but rather questioned the sources.

I apologize for saying it in a way that was offensive but if you want the honest truth, it stung that after all our exchanges that you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt regarding sources, especially when you know that it's how I make my living. That's why I phrased the statement the way I did - not to "wave my credentials in your face" but rather to explain that I felt that you should know that I would know better. Likewise, I assume that you are not trying to "pull something" when you give your information. And it is quite clear that from the moment you "called a flag on the play" that you thought I was trying to pull something. I hope this makes sense.

[guitarfool2002]

For those interested in Chicago's crime problems, here is the most current headline from the Chicago Tribune this morning, please take a minute to read it for yourself and then make up your own minds about the issue of legal versus illegal guns and gun control in general, among other topics:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-one-dead-one-wounded-in-west-side-shooting,0,7397706.story

Here is this morning's headline:

4 killed, 10 wounded in 10 hours across city

Four people, including two 16-year-old boys, were killed and at least 10 people were wounded within 10 hours Thursday across the city, according to Chicago police.

By Peter Nickeas

August 3, 2012

So after I posted my ramblings, after everyone went to sleep and did whatever from yesterday to this morning, this is what happened in less than half a day in Chicago. Tell me one new gun law which would effectively end this sort of thing in that city...please. if you have 16 year olds being gunned down in cold blood by gang bangers, and other assorted law-breakers, please inform us on which new gun law would affect those people committing these crimes when the fact that many even own a firearm is against the current law.

Read the article, the news speaks for itself.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So after I posted my ramblings, after everyone went to sleep and did whatever from yesterday to this morning, this is what happened in less than half a day in Chicago. Tell me one new gun law which would effectively end this sort of thing in that city...please.

And may I please direct you to this quotation from me before you entered the discussion:

I'm not suggesting here nor have I suggested anywhere that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of crime.

[GreatUrduPoet]

tick...tick...tick

[guitarfool2002]

Well, take it from someone who has a lot more experience with scholarly research than you – the sources are fine.

That's all I needed to read. It's been fun, but I'm not getting into a pissing match and that's just childish to play that card. And I don't need someone waving academic credentials in my face when I never questioned anything personal but rather questioned the sources.

I apologize for saying it in a way that was offensive but if you want the honest truth, it stung that after all our exchanges that you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt regarding sources, especially when you know that it's how I make my living. That's why I phrased the statement the way I did - not to "wave my credentials in your face" but rather to explain that I felt that you should know that I would know better. Likewise, I assume that you are not trying to "pull something" when you give your information. And it is quite clear that from the moment you "called a flag on the play" that you thought I was trying to pull something. I hope this makes sense.

I can get a bit carried away too, so apology accepted and one offered in return. These debates can get heated, but at least we keep it civil and I'd like to think we keep it to the words in front of us and not resort to name calling and the like.

The referee was just an attempt at some visual humor, I do that often but it wasn't anything but a visual joke in reponse to what I read as something I didn't agree with.

As far as the sources, again with all due respect, if I were to have quoted either here or elsewhere a set of data or facts which came from Fox News, some conglomerate associated with Murdoch, or anything else that was at all considered coming from a questionable right-leaning source if your viewpoint may lean more to the left, I'd be called out at best and nailed to the wall at worst for using sources which aren't "solid" or "good" compared to others.

It's that slippery slope of which news one may put on a higher scale of trustworthiness over another, and I think at this point there can't be and is no "gold standard" for news delivery and factual reporting in 2012. Both sides have so polluted the waters, anyone who is interested and cares about current events and news has to read multiple sources on the same thing and filter out all the crap to get what they need from the reporting. It's a burden on us the public rather than a burden on them the news media reporting this stuff.

I felt I was responding to a quotation from WikiPedia (where anyone can add or enhance the data in those entries and where some data can be shaky at best), and a reference to a left-leaning blogger whose writings as a blog are considered more opinion than reporting by the sheer fact that he is writing an opinion-driven blog and not a news report at that link.

And concluding that I have seen folks in very similar circumstances add references to similar sources and get hammered for doing so, again at best they got questioned for referring to something like a Fox News report even though the facts may have been 100% correct...it wasn't valid to use Fox News as a basis of reference no matter how accurate the reporting in whichever case was addressed.

But again, there is no malice and I always welcome a good back-and-forth debate!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But again, there is no malice and I always welcome a good back-and-forth debate!

Thanks – feeling is mutual and I quite enjoy our discussions.

Your post opens up an area of discussion that, in fact, is interesting to me but is perhaps interesting to no one else, which is sourcing, citing, and researching. I’ll speak my piece on it here with the understanding that it is probably nothing other than sleep-inducing for everyone else.

So, let’s take your central example – Fox News. My personal point of view is that I would have absolutely no problem at all if someone on here used a reference from Fox News to bolster their point and, in fact, would believe it to be nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that a point would become de-legitimized simply because of the source rather than some justified reason, like the reference was not factual or the reference was taken out of context or the reference itself is based on specious reasoning or inaccurate/poor use of facts.

Now, if one were doing some serious academic essay, for instance, I would argue that using quotes from the US mainstream media is good for mainly one purpose, namely media analysis. In other words, I don’t think that in a serious intellectual forum, that you can seriously or credibly use a mainstream media source without acknowledging first that it is an ideological construct. You note in your post, for example, that “Both sides” of the media have “polluted the waters.” It seems to me though that what a media analysis shows is that from Fox News to MSNBC to the New York Times, there is only shades of opinion that can be found on one side of the argument, that in fact there are no “both sides” in the US mainstream media. Ultimately, it reflects one central ideological position, and the narrow differences of opinion that one can have within that position. Now this may be a debatable issue but to prove either side, one would need to show a series of quotations from these mainstream media sources to make their point, either way. And, to me, that’s really, the only serious way to make use of say quotes from Fox or the Washington Post, or whatever.

If you’re looking to make points to reinforce a certain political argument, I think it’s always important to go to the source. Again, though, this means from the outset that you are taking the conversation seriously. If one is simply interested in engaging in the rehearsed “crossfire” arguments that take place on cable news shows, then as far as I’m concerned, he or she will never get beyond the most trivial observations about politics. If one is serious though, they look closely at policies, at things like national security council reports, Pentagon reports, etc. In the case of say, crime, you look at the statistics typically accumulated by some official committee, you look at police reports, etc. Looking at the mainstream media for this information can help you to see how they are processing this information, how they are presenting it, how they are contextualizing it, etc. But again, that’s media analysis. If you’re looking to see how others are issuing facts, then you look to the mainstream media. If you’re making a case yourself, then you look to the original primary documents.

Again, all this is important for serious, formal, intellectual inquiries. In an internet forum, I assume there is some leeway. In a paper that will be read by other academics and that will construct my reputation as an academic, the above is unquestionably my research method. The standards in an internet forum are different, and rightly so. This is a place where one can post, and post quickly. If one is looking for a response for me, I don’t have the luxury of spending a month like I could with a publishable paper, to carry out the kind of research project that I describe above. I certainly don’t expect that of anybody nor do I think it is really expected of me. In that case, I go to the places that are fairly reliable and if they aren’t reliable then I verify the information I am reading. Importantly, though, I don't privilege one format over the other. I certainly don't consider the academic research paper or book to be more important or worthy of attention than an internet forum - and, I mean that quite seriously. If this where a message board for academics (particular liberal arts academics, a group that I begrudgingly belong to at times) you'd find that I would have some very serious criticisms about what we do and how we do it (and, in that sense, I would probably be an outsider figure) despite my otherwise happy participation in the pursuit.

You bring up a point with Wikipedia which is interesting. You note that a problem with Wikipedia is that “anyone can add or enhance the data in those entries” and that “some data can be shaky at best.” As for the latter point, I have yet to see that Wikipedia’s data is shakier than any other data source but that might be a case of personal opinion. The first criticism though is I think partly what can make Wikipedia a valuable resource. Remember that for important topics, Wikipedia entries are very closely monitored and erroneous information is typically removed in quick fashion and information that is uncited is documented as such. I think that the benefits of this sort of system, in which one person doesn’t get to be the authority on a subject, outweighs the negatives.

The real problem with Wikipedia for scholarship is, in my opinion, not these issues that you raise. The problem is that undergraduate students use it as if it counts as a legitimate secondary source, and it isn’t, but students go to it a lot because it is so easy to access. And therefore it is necessary to drill it in that you shouldn’t go to it. A legitimate secondary source is a source that itself presents a particular argument – something that you can engage with, work with, interrogate, compare with other arguments, etc. Wikipedia is not that – it’s a glorified encyclopedia or dictionary. It’s not necessarily wrong to use Wikipedia as a source in a paper but it is useless and it displays a lack of understanding of what intellectual inquiry and critical engagement really is. This, to me, is the reason why undergraduates are discouraged from using Wikipedia as a source and this discouragement has somehow seeped into the popular consciousness where it doesn’t really matter so much.

So, yes, I will probably continue to use Wikipedia in these kinds of posts because not only is it reliable, it also presents information from the very same primary material that I would probably engage with anyway if this were a more academic format and I had the time to spend researching it. I hope some of you made it through this without falling asleep.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

can we move this discussion away from guns?

I think it's a very simple and very human situation. With the gun debate, it's not about preventing homicides or crime: it's simply NOT WANTING TO GET SHOT!!!!

People hear a story about someone shooting up a place and they simply don't want to get shot. Then about a week later, they go back to their lives. It's like if you just get finished watching The Day After, you're suddenly all riled up about nuclear disarmament, but then you realize you just have to learn to live with certain realities.

[GreatUrduPoet]

can we move this discussion away from guns?

I think it's a very simple and very human situation. With the gun debate, it's not about preventing homicides or crime: it's simply NOT WANTING TO GET SHOT!!!!

People hear a story about someone shooting up a place and they simply don't want to get shot. Then about a week later, they go back to their lives. It's like if you just get finished watching The Day After, you're suddenly all riled up about nuclear disarmament, but then you realize you just have to learn to live with certain realities.

I try not to let B.S. propaganda dictate my behavior.
God Bless Bruce Johnson...the underrated Beach Boy.

[Jason]

can we move this discussion away from guns?

I think it's a very simple and very human situation. With the gun debate, it's not about preventing homicides or crime: it's simply NOT WANTING TO GET SHOT!!!!

People hear a story about someone shooting up a place and they simply don't want to get shot. Then about a week later, they go back to their lives. It's like if you just get finished watching The Day After, you're suddenly all riled up about nuclear disarmament, but then you realize you just have to learn to live with certain realities.

You don't want to get shot, and that's fine. I don't want to get shot either. However, if someone breaks into my house, I will shoot before asking questions. Granted, I don't want to get shot, so I won't be breaking into anyone's house.

I know this may sound quite draconian to the uncivilized folks on here (specifically the "oh, I'll just run away because criminals are welcome in my home" Europeans) who would rather have criminals defend themselves over people who actually obey the admittedly ridiculous laws.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I honestly don't see any correlation between owning a gun that you keep in your home in case the Manson kids break in and need to be shot and gun crime in the U.S. So, I really don't understand the debate in the first place. When someone shoots an intruder and is found innocent of any/all possible charges: is that considered gun crime, or is gun crime things like guys shooting up liquor stores or movie theaters or shooting someone while carjacking. THAT'S gun crime, right? I can't see people who keep a gun in a closet or under the bed or in a gun cabinet in the basement as anyone to worry about...... Now, their insane/emo/mass shooting planning kids who have access to those guns, on the other hand......

[Jason]

I honestly don't see any correlation between owning a gun that you keep in your home in case the Manson kids break in and need to be shot and gun crime in the U.S. So, I really don't understand the debate in the first place. When someone shoots an intruder and is found innocent of any/all possible charges: is that considered gun crime, or is gun crime things like guys shooting up liquor stores or movie theaters or shooting someone while carjacking. THAT'S gun crime, right? I can't see people who keep a gun in a closet or under the bed or in a gun cabinet in the basement as anyone to worry about...... Now, their insane/emo/mass shooting planning kids who have access to those guns, on the other hand......

If there's a will, there's a way. I'm sure someone could beat someone else to death with the Sunday New York Times if he really cared enough and put forth the effort.

As far as someone following castle doctrine laws, that's not considered a "gun crime" unless the liberal media decides that the "victim" is a member of some "special interest" group. For example, the Trayvon Martin case. Total self-defense on Zimmerman's part. But don't tell the liberal media and the liberal community that same information...they'll call you a racist. Liberals want castle doctrine laws repealed because they believe criminals should have the "right" to do as they please on someone else's PRIVATE property. They won't say that outright, but they also believe that we should trust the ten minutes it takes for the police to arrive as opposed to the tenth of a second it takes to pull a trigger. To be fair, Dear Leader Obama is more into gun rights than the same brain dead liberals who voted him into the presidency.

The liberal media likes to paint the gun rights crowd as people who would support idiots like the guy who shot up the Sikh temple or the dude who shot up the Aurora movie theater. We don't. We do believe that if people in those situations were allowed to carry a means of self-defense, including a gun, that those incidents would never have ended up like they did.