4th of July weekend Chicago body count - 15 shot so far

killings on Chicago streets is about gangs, drugs and other crime. Murdering children in your neighbor because they are black is nothing more than racist. Trayvon had nothing to do with gangs, drugs or other crimes. Unemployment rate among young black men is over 50% and that leads to crime.

It's this statement right here that proves you dont know shit.

"Trayvon had nothing to do with gangs, drugs or other crimes."

You're either the most ill informed person in the country,or you lie.

Inform me and prove otherwise or stfu.:cool:
Trayvon had no criminal record. Being suspended for marijuana use, the drug being legalized is not a crime. He did no go to jail but Zimmerman dodged criminal prosecution possible because of is father is a different story. Trayvon tested for drug but Zimerman was not. Racist.
Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officerThe three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.
In December 2006, Zimmerman was charged with speeding. The case was dismissed when the officer failed to show up in court.

Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with a police officer - U.S. News

Zimmerman was the THUG.

I'm not doing your legwork. Everyone and their dog knows TM was into some shady shit.
Like possessing stolen property for one.
Why is it that I can admit GZ had a few legal problems yet you're willfully blind to TMs?

No need to answer...we all know why.
 
It's this statement right here that proves you dont know shit.

"Trayvon had nothing to do with gangs, drugs or other crimes."

You're either the most ill informed person in the country,or you lie.

Ignorant enough to think that unemployment is an excuse/reason for criminal behavior.

Did not say it was an excuse but long term unemployment is a factor in crime.

HIGHER CRIME RATE LINKED TO LOW WAGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT, STUDY FINDS
Higher Crime Rate Linked To Low Wages And Unemployment, Study Finds

My mistake, you are using unemployment as justification.
Still wrong and ignorant on your part.
 
I assure you, you fucking m entlaly defective liberal shit, if libtards made the minimum wage $1,000 an hour, there would still be crime, let alone massive inflation. You people are retards who constantly make excuses for inexscusable behavior. TWO FUCKING CHILDREN WERE SHOT as well. Do people shoot kids because they are paid low wages you cocksucking liberal piece of prancing shit?
 
[

Ignorant enough to think that unemployment is an excuse/reason for criminal behavior.

Spoken like someone who has never known hunger...

Ironic given in this country the poorer you are the more likely you are to be fat. This isn't the time of Jean valjean.

No, the wealthy have gotten JUST smart enough to realize that if you keep people at least fed with a corporatist food stamp program that subsidizes Archer-Daniels Midland, they won't be rioting in the street demanding common decency.

But I find it laughable that a bunch of people who are well off enough to afford internet service and a computer are here arguing about what the poor must be like.
 
The richer someone is, the more likely it is that they spend an inordinate of time being so hungry they could be described as starving. The poor are obese because they deny themselves nothing. The truly starving are very wealthy supermodels who eat cotton balls they get so hungry.

The poor, on the other hand, are provided with so much food, that they can afford to spend their government provided food benefits at the porn shop.
 
The richer someone is, the more likely it is that they spend an inordinate of time being so hungry they could be described as starving. The poor are obese because they deny themselves nothing. The truly starving are very wealthy supermodels who eat cotton balls they get so hungry.

The poor, on the other hand, are provided with so much food, that they can afford to spend their government provided food benefits at the porn shop.

Oooh, you hate them welfare people so much, it hurts your little head.
 
The richer someone is, the more likely it is that they spend an inordinate of time being so hungry they could be described as starving. The poor are obese because they deny themselves nothing. The truly starving are very wealthy supermodels who eat cotton balls they get so hungry.

The poor, on the other hand, are provided with so much food, that they can afford to spend their government provided food benefits at the porn shop.

What color is the sky in your world?
 
1005283_604543439567525_871052371_n.jpg
 
killings on Chicago streets is about gangs, drugs and other crime. Murdering children in your neighbor because they are black is nothing more than racist. Trayvon had nothing to do with gangs, drugs or other crimes. Unemployment rate among young black men is over 50% and that leads to crime.

Gee, wonder how many of those in the plus-50% are unemployed because of their cultural habits such as an inability to communicate efficiently in either written or spoken English with a potential employer? Or maybe can't add, say, 75 and 23 without the aid of a calculator. Or gets something other than 98 with a calculator.
 
No, it just proves local bans don't work, and you need a national ban.

Logic fail. If gun violence across the country was akin to what it is in Chicago, THEN your statement might have a modicum a validity. Stated differently, why don't we see the same level of 'gun violence' outside of Chicago? Answer: Because it's the PEOPLE in Chicago killing each other, not the firearms.

God you're stupid.

Incidently, Chicago had much worse gun violence before the ban was put into effect in 1984

Another logic fail. EVERY large city saw higher levels of violent crime in 1984. That's right, despite the skyrocketing sales of firearms in America over the last 30 years and the exponential increase in conceal carry permits, violent crime is DOWN. Blows your theory that guns cause violence out of the water.

Really, really stupid. Good luck with that.

Guy, the fact is, countries that limit or outlaw private gun ownership have MINIMAL murder rates compared to the United States.

There are actually cities that have WORSE murder rates than Chicago.

In fact, Chicago doesn't even make the top 10.

America's 10 Deadliest Cities 2012




You cant put these people in charge of anything..........



liberal logic..........gay

Laughable beyond words..........and even funnier when you consider the latest research from Harvard ( April 2013) shows without a shadow of a doubt........

more guns = less crimes


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.



Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.

Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?





 
Last edited:
No, it just proves local bans don't work, and you need a national ban.

Logic fail. If gun violence across the country was akin to what it is in Chicago, THEN your statement might have a modicum a validity. Stated differently, why don't we see the same level of 'gun violence' outside of Chicago? Answer: Because it's the PEOPLE in Chicago killing each other, not the firearms.

God you're stupid.

Incidently, Chicago had much worse gun violence before the ban was put into effect in 1984

Another logic fail. EVERY large city saw higher levels of violent crime in 1984. That's right, despite the skyrocketing sales of firearms in America over the last 30 years and the exponential increase in conceal carry permits, violent crime is DOWN. Blows your theory that guns cause violence out of the water.

Really, really stupid. Good luck with that.

Guy, the fact is, countries that limit or outlaw private gun ownership have MINIMAL murder rates compared to the United States.

NOT TRUE. America doesn't make it into the top 100 list of countries by murder rate, a list that includes many countries that have a ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Fail again.

And oh, your precious England, after they banned firearms, has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than America.

Oops.

There are actually cities that have WORSE murder rates than Chicago.

In fact, Chicago doesn't even make the top 10.

America's 10 Deadliest Cities 2012

Which in no way refutes the fact that it's the PEOPLE of those cities killing each other, not inanimate objects.

The stupid runs DEEP in this one...
 
[

NOT TRUE. America doesn't make it into the top 100 list of countries by murder rate, a list that includes many countries that have a ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Fail again.

And oh, your precious England, after they banned firearms, has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than America.

Oops.

Guy, either you are a liar or a gullible fool who believes whatever shit you hear on National Rampage Association websites.

Either way, you aren't worth having a discussion with.

FOr the record.

We had 11,101 gun murders last year.

The United Kingdom had 42.
 
and it's only Thursday

3 dead, 12 wounded in Chicago as long July 4th weekend begins - chicagotribune.com

I'm curious, if it gets to over 80, will Obama have any comments about the wholesale slaughter in his community or will he and other libs just want to focus on Zimmerman?

Why should Obama comment? This is what you lot are happy with - people being gunned down in the prime of their lives, all over a stupid piece of paper.

He didn't mind commenting on Trayvon Martin. Oh yeah, his life means a whole lot more than the hundreds of children who have died in inner city Chicago.

Go figure.
 
So why not comment on the horrible crime in his hometown? He even commented on the arrest of Henry gates but not when 70 plus people get shot?
 

Forum List

Back
Top