Violent Weekend in Chicago: 37 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 7 Dead

[Indy Lurker]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/blotter/chi-violence-slayings-webapr22,0,6786314.story

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704529.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351981,00.html

(quotes are from all three articles)


Chicago police say that warmer weather means more opportunities for violent crime, so they are stepping up patrols and focusing their efforts on targeting gang leaders.

Police Superintendent Jody Weis blamed an excess of guns and gangs for the rash of violence.

"You just have too many guns, gangs, too many weapons out here. That's why we have to work hard to take them off. Chicago has probably enjoyed the greatest success in taking weapons off the street," Weis said.

Police admit that three dozen shootings in one weekend is a lot, but through the end of March in Chicago, violent crime was down.

During the same weekend last year, there were 19 shootings, including four homicides.

21 shootings were reported during the same weekend in 2006.

************************************

with extremely few exceptions*, law abiding citizens may not own or possess a handgun in Chicago.

It looks like the handgun ban is a complete failure in Chicago.




*It has been illegal since 1983 for even the most law-abiding Chicago residents to own handguns; only guns owned before the ban was passed can be registered, and they must be re-registered every two years. If you miss your registration date, you lose your firearm. Possession of an unregistered handgun carries a penalty of less than a year in prison or a $500 fine.

[mitchleary]

1. Yeah it a complete failure

cuz if a person is going to rob and stab or rob and shoot you, they do not care if guns are legal or not. Geez, how many times does that need to be said? Gun bans only hurt law abiding citizens.

[zanne]

2. Chicago requires "registration" of all firearms.

I know you'd like to make everybody think that Chicago and DC have failed gun bans, but it just isn't true. In both DC and Chicago, gun possession IS NOT ILLEGAL. http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_il.htm

[slackmaster]

4. Any bets on whether ANY of the weapons used in these shootings were legally possessed?

Cue sound of crickets chirping.

[iverglas]

13. I'll see what you're betting

Any bets on whether ANY of the weapons used in these shootings were legally possessed?

All of them -- ALL OF THEM -- were legally possessed. Each one of them was legally possessed. By some piece of dirt "law-abiding gun owner" who transferred possession to someone not eligible to possess it, if that was the case.

Sold it, traded it, left it lying around where it got stolen. The dead people don't give a crap how they did it.

[slackmaster]

23. The transfers you describe would not have been legal

:rofl:

[iverglas]

26. fuckin duh

Well pistol-whip me til I'm purple. I seem to have had some point other than the one that I thought I saw in big black letters on my monitor.

The transfers I described would not have been legal. My gawd. How could I have missed that?

Oh well. It seems to be completely irrelevant to the point I was making, so we'll just click on by.

[slackmaster]

29. The only point you have made here is that you are pedantic and rude

:hi:

[Indy Lurker]

9. Handgun registration is closed

It is illegal to have a handgun that is not registered.

It is not possible to register a handgun that was not registered in 1982, and every two years since.

So for example, it is not possible for a regular citizen who has moved to Chicago since 1982 to legally own a handgun in the city of Chicago.

[zanne]

10. You can own a rifle or a shotgun in DC and Chicago.

So the meme that guns are "banned" there is untrue. Maybe rifles and shotguns are not enough to make you feel secure, but that's not my problem.

[jmg257]

12. Rifles and shotguns may help, but they are a bit hard to conceal when out and about.

Pistols are much handier for such purposes.

Apparently that WOULD be a problem (but rightly so - probably not your problem) if you wanted to do so legally - in say Chicago (or DC).

[Indy Lurker]

14. The discussion is about handguns

I never mentioned long guns in the original message.

Back to handguns, the reason for closing the registration of handguns was to reduce violence, and as I stated, it appears to have failed.

Your discussion of long guns is off topic.

[zanne]

41. So it has to be handguns?

I guess the long guns aren't as handy, which is exactly the point by the way.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. They can't be functional though.

Important distinction. You can have one as long as it is kept in a non functional state. Of course zanne left that out. The truth hurts her arguments.

David

[DonP]

16. Ummm, Not quite true

I live here, so I take a real personal interest in the laws in Chicago and Crook County.

Handguns must be registered with the Chicago police but, like DC they closed all registration in the 1970's, '78 I think. Try to register a handgun and it gets confiscated on the spot. Of course aldermen/women are exempt from the law and are allowed to carry concealed as "peace" officers.

Long guns are allowed (assuming they hold no more than three rounds in the box magazine, temporary plugs are not acceptable) but they must be registered regularly with the CPD as well. Registration is still allowed for long guns, at least for now, assuming you have a current FOID card of course, and keep the registration current. If you let it lapse you may not be allowed to re-register. It usually calls for a police review of your request and they will hold your gun until the review is completed. No time limit on the review process.

Chicago also uses the infamous CPD CAGE unit, (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) to investigate and confiscate guns previously registered that were not properly re-registered. Yes, there have been forced confiscations of guns in Chicago.

Of course there is a complete "assault weapons" ban and a ban on the deadly .50 caliber rifle as well.

With the killings this weekend and all those existing gun control laws you still feel the gun "control" gun bans, whatever, are working well here?

[BadgerLaw2010]

33. Registration on paper is illegal in practice. Unless you predate it.

You cannot get a handgun registered in Chicago or DC, therefore, you cannot legally own one. It's functionally an outright ban.

It doesn't seem to do very much.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. And it's obviously working well.

[slackmaster]

3. Wow, what a shithole

One more reason to be glad I live in San Diego.

[enid602]

5. Chicago

Chicago's probably one of the most racially-segregated cities in the country. Still that black-vs-white, can't cross over to the other side of the street mentality. Not heterogenous like the West.

[slackmaster]

6. The father of a friend of mine was attacked there in 1968

He, a white man, mistakenly drove his Cadillac into a crowd of black people who were rioting in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They picked up his car and turned it over. Police rescued him an hour later.

[enid602]

7. hope

I hope he did not literally drive his Caddy into a group of people. . .

[slackmaster]

8. No, not at all

He was trying to get from Point A to Point B. He had to stop when he encountered the crowd. Then the crowd, or mob, attacked him.

[Longtooth]

11. This is a perfect example of why good guys SHOULD

be able to legally carry concealed. And just as perfect an example of how bad guys do not obey gun control laws at all.

[iverglas]

15. okay good; now we've got something.

Your homework:

Go through those shootings and identify the ones in which someone having legally had a firearm stowed somewhere about his/her person would have prevented the death/injury.

This one?

The three victims, all males, were standing on the corner when a vehicle drove up and a gunman opened fire.

Hmm. I kinda suspect that the three victims would have been ineligible themselves -- would have been denied the ability to exercise that INALIENABLE RIGHT of self-defence. Not that I see a lot of self-defence being likely to happen when somebody drives up and shoots you.

But hey. Three worthless lives ended. We don't actually care, do we?

Phew. No kids hit in the crossfire that time, I guess.

A 31-year-old man and 32-year-old woman were sitting in a Chevrolet van when two men emerged from a gangway, approached the vehicle and opened fire.

Well, I guess it depends on what they were doing. They coulda been sitting there having a conversation, each of them with a firearm in hand, facing in opposite directions, scanning the landscape for bad guys.

Of course, they probably couldn't have had firearms legally either. Two more down. Chicago's just getting pleasanter by the shooting, i'n't it?

[Longtooth]

17. You need to take some classes on

firearms training with regard to personal protection. Such scenarios are covered in those classes. I believe that the in-site you gain in such classes would open your eyes.

[iverglas]

18. well alrighty then

I guess all you'll be needing to do is provide an example of somebody successfully defending him/herself against a drive-by shooting such as was described there.

Longfella, old chum -- are you seriously going to assert a belief that the individuals shot in that drive-by shooting did NOT have firearms on their persons?

Snork.

[Longtooth]

19. So why are you now altering my User Name and calling me Old Chum?

I just want to have an honest discussion but you seem to want to do anything but. Why is that? And please do not refer me to as Old Chum. I am offended at the swipe at my age.

[iverglas]

21. get a passport

Learn the English language as spoken in the rest of the world.

Y'r humble servant

... how'd that go? ...

iverblast

[Longtooth]

27. Please stop the personal insults. And do not quote out of context.

My quote was "Iverblast(i think)". As is obvious I was unsure of your user name. Your alteration of my user name however, was intentional and obviously meant as a slap in the face to me. I do not know what the source of you hostility is but it has no place here. At least that is what I got from reading the rules here at DU.

[zanne]

42. You're awfully sensitive for a gun lover.

Is that why you carry a gun? Please answer my question before attempting to either 1)Run to the Mods saying that I'm being mean to you or 2) Accusing me of not wanting to "discuss" anything with you. You're not all that interested in discussion, y'know? By the way, you're not the only old person here. I'm old, too.

[Longtooth]

48. I legally carry a gun for

self defense. As far as the other issues go: I actually read the rules before posting here and had assumed others had as well. So I was taken aback when I was met with so many disrespectful, malicious, and offensive responses posted to me.

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.



How some of the members here have gone beyond 1000 posts is beyond me.

[zanne]

51. If you think this is bad, check out General Discussion: Primaries

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. zanne put me on ignore after 10 posts

All I did was disagree with her. How's that for open mindedness?

David

[Longtooth]

55. Yeah, there seems

to be several here that cannot engage in meaningful discussion without either 1) hurling insults or 2) trying to change subject with red herrings or straw man side steps.

I am absolutely amazed though at the blatant rules violation with apparent immunity. Makes me wonder. . . Not accusing anyone mind you, I'm just wondering.

[Longtooth]

20. You once told me that you do not make assumptions, you only

state facts. Please show where the folks you use as examples were armed.

[iverglas]

22. "Please show where the folks you use as examples were armed."

Why would I do that?

I didn't say they were armed.

I just laughed pre-emptively at anybody in the vicinity who might state the wide-eyed belief they weren't.

[Longtooth]

24. This is what you said:

Longfella, old chum -- are you seriously going to assert a belief that the individuals shot in that drive-by shooting did NOT have firearms on their persons?


Sorry if i miss-understood but it seems to me that you are implying that they were armed.

[iverglas]

25. "infer", "imply"

You seem to have inferred sumpthin. I didn't imply nuttin.

We had this little discussion here recently. I guess it was before your time. But since I can't see that profile, I wouldn't know.

Saying "the earth is flat" is an assertion of fact. It can be true or false.

Saying "I believe the earth is flat" is a statement of belief. It isn't true or false, or any kind of claim about anything.

I'm an atheist and an agnostic.

I don't believe in sky faeries -- but that absence of belief is NOT = to a statement that there are no sky faeries, so nobody gets to say to me "prove there are no sky faeries!!"

And very certainly, nobody gets to say to me that I have called him/her a liar when s/he says that sky faeries whisper in his/her ear late at night. I just don't believe it. I'm not saying it is or it ain't. I'm an atheist. I don't believe it.

I don't know whether there are sky faeries. How would I? So I'm not gonna say there is or there ain't. I'm an agnostic.


Soooo ... I have no idea whether the victims of the shooting were packing. I wasn't there and I don't know them and they didn't whisper anything in my ear.

Nobody here does either. But if anybody here claimed to believe they weren't packing, I'd be snorting. 'Cause I wouldn't believe s/he didn't believe it.


This should all stand you in good in future.

[Longtooth]

28. Thank you for the dissertation but you did say what you said.

[iverglas]

31. Nooooo!!!1!1!! - I said what I said?!?

You mean ... this? --

are you seriously going to assert a belief
that the individuals shot in that drive-by shooting
did NOT have firearms on their persons?

You seem to recall it so well ... and have had so much nonsense to say about it ... and yet not to have answered it ...

[Longtooth]

36. I'm still waiting on clarification of what you said. I'm just a simple fellow

so maybe you could restate it for me. Of course, I'm still waiting on YOUR answer to my simple question. You remember, the one you said something to the effect of "no" your simply not going to answer it.

Seems to me if you want people to answer YOUR questions you need to answer their questions. Call me silly but that is the way normal folks talk things out. So, if you want me to answer some question of your please state it a little more plainly and answer my question to you. Then I'll be happy to answer you question.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Don't even bother.

It's a complete waste. She'll never give you a straight answer. Obviously her preconceived ideas cause her to believe that the victims were armed, she'll never admit that though. She does this all the time, makes an assertion then denies that she really meant what the assertion asserted. She does keep it interesting though. She's Canadian though and a violent crime victim so understand where she comes from on both counts.

David

[iverglas]

44. you should probably explain it

She's Canadian though and a violent crime victim so understand where she comes from on both counts.

Well hmm.

On the first count, I'd have to look up the exact coordinates, but it's about 100 miles ENE of Detroit.

On the second count, you'll need to help me out. As a violent crime victim, where am I coming from? Maybe more usefully, where am I going? And how does this relate to anything here?

Please explain soon. I seem to be in need of guidance.

[Longtooth]

46. Thanks for the advise.

I think I'll take it.

[iverglas]

43. there's where you're confused

I don't actually give a crap whether you answer that question, or any other.

[Longtooth]

47. M'Kay

Thank you but I already decided to take Fire Medic Dave's advice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Do you have any evidence they had firearms on their person?

[iverglas]

45. do you have any evidence that the moon is made of green cheese?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. No but I never made that assertion.

[iverglas]

50. fuckin duh

Can you follow those breadcrumbs backwards now?

Maybe you'll run into where I made the assertion you're attributing to me ... if you manage to get to the other side of the looking glass on your way.

[Indy Lurker]

30. Obviously the shootings are bad

and obviously not every shooting can be stopped by a handgun.

but my statement was that the handgun registration ban is not helping.

[iverglas]

32. and the evidence on which you based that statement was?

my statement was that the handgun registration ban is not helping.

So what *did* happen in Chicago last weekend in that universe where handguns are not banned?

While you're checking that out, can you tell me what happened in Chicago last weekend in the universe where Chicago had a moat with crocodiles all around it ... and a handgun-deflecting force field ... and no profiteering gun dealers camped on the other side ... ?

[Indy Lurker]

34. evidence is 37 shootings and 9 dead

Do you really think there would be more shootings and killings if the laws allowed citizens to own handguns?


I agree there is no "handgun-deflecting force field" and there are some "profiteering gun dealers" but doesn't that cut against the value of the handgun registration ban?

If the laws that ban handgun ownership are so easily defeated by criminals, what is their value?

[facepalm]

52. criminals break law, water wet, sky blue, gun grabbers irrational

Ummm, handguns are banned in Chicago. They have been for some time.

Violent criminals don't obey laws. If they are not inside a prison, they will get guns. If they get guns, they will use them.

Banning guns won't prevent this any more than banning weed prevents people from getting high. All you do is ensure that every potential victim the criminals encounter will either be 1) another violent criminal, 2) disarmed or 3) wearing a police uniform. I wouldn't want to live in such a society.

[iverglas]

53. oh goodie! I have a new fan!

Was this maybe your very first post, dedicated to moi?

I wish some of my fans would try to have an original thought occasionally.

Heck, even one that made sense, even if it did come from the songbook ...

Adherents of the Repeated Meme

[gorfle]

35. No doubt.

Hmm. I kinda suspect that the three victims would have been ineligible themselves -- would have been denied the ability to exercise that INALIENABLE RIGHT of self-defence. Not that I see a lot of self-defence being likely to happen when somebody drives up and shoots you.

You are probably right that people in Chicago probably are not eligible to carry firearms to exercise their inalienable right to self-defense, and that is a shame.

You are also right that there isn't much you can do in terms of self-defense when somebody drives up and shoots at you.

But given the option of being armed and being shot at in a drive-by or being defenseless, I'd chose the former. Some chance is better than no chance.

Of course, they probably couldn't have had firearms legally either. Two more down. Chicago's just getting pleasanter by the shooting, i'n't it?

Considering most of the shootings are gang-related, I'd have to agree with you. Hopefully we are seeing Darwinism in action.