Gunfree Chicago: Three men shot in drive-by at Englewood block party

[Indy Lurker]

Englewood is a Chicago neighborhood with about 40,000 residents, and a large amount of gang crime.

As with the rest of Chicago, It's illegal to register and own a handgun.

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


http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1685707,w-englewood-block-party-shooting-072609.article

Three men suffered gunshot wounds when shots were fired from a dark vehicle into a large crowd of people gathering for a block party in the South Side Englewood neighborhood early Sunday in a situation that prompted a call for additional police assistance due to a “disruptive and unruly” crowd.

According to unconfirmed police dispatch reports, the people were gathering for a large Gangster Disciples party.

[xchrom]

1. more of that if right kind of people shoot each other up we'll all be better offf

or if they had been carrying the resultant massive shoot out would be better or the neighborhood dictates the behavior of the residents or lectures about this kind of parenting -- as say opposed to the parenting of a michael vick or on and on?

i will always vote for gun control.

[Indy Lurker]

2. Shootings are never desirable

Not even in self defense.

Self defense shootings may be necessary, but they are never desirable.

Chicago is already "Gun Free" What other gun control measures do you recommend?

[eqfan592]

3. Ok, I'm for some sorts of gun control as well.

Like background checks. But how far do you think it should be taken? Saying you're for "gun control" isn't really saying much.

[xchrom]

5. so threre NO legal gun owners in chicago?

and NONE of those legal gun owners commit crimes in chicago?

gun free is aan advertisement -- a utopia descriptive -- understood by most to be just that.

[eqfan592]

7. Ummmmm, I don't think you replied to the correct post. (nt)

[xchrom]

9. no i meant to reply to you. nt

[eqfan592]

10. Then your reply makes no sense.

I stated that saying simply you will vote for gun control isn't really saying much, as the vast majority of people are pro SOME gun control, like background checks. I then went on to ask you about how far you would take gun control. I made no statement about legal firearms ownership in Chicago. Your reply seems to be something of a knee-jerk reaction, as that is one of the few explanations I can think of for the randomness of it.

[xchrom]

11. as long as you are for at LEAST a modicum of gun control -- and we virtually have none now --

in spite of the biased agitations that happen here - we are on the same side -- to a point.

but from what i can tell right now -- we are not.

i'll wait and see.

[eqfan592]

12. There are over 13,000 federal and state laws on the books right now...

...relating to gun's. Your idea of "modicum" and mine are obviously very different. And this still doesn't answer my original question.

[xchrom]

13. yeah i thought so -- i later saw your reply in an earlier thread.

we are not even the least on the same side.

[eqfan592]

14. So basically...

...instead of answering the question, you're going to state that "we're not on the same side" and leave it at that? Hmmm, debates with you must not be very interesting in the least.

Person A: "........and thus I propose that law A is morally correct."
Moderator: "Rebuttal?"
You: "We are not even the least on the same side."
Audience: "........?"

[xchrom]

17. the guns were probably stolen or transfered from a legal gun owner

IF they were illegal at all -- there is very little left to debate -- except that in both instances the legal gun ownwer should and could be held responsible.

that's life in america.

and like run amok banksters -- that shit needs to be controlled.

[eqfan592]

18. My guns are locked up...

...in a $100 sheet metal box from Dunhams with a lock. I have no delusions about the ability for a criminal to either carry the thing out of the house (I can lift it on my own) or to break/pick the lock.

I can't afford a heavier, more burglar proof one. Does this mean I shouldn't have the right to own firearms? Should I be charged with a crime if somebody breaks into my gun safe and steals my firearms?

[xchrom]

19. if some one comes in and steals your fire arms -- then they weren't properly locked up. -- if those

firearms are subsequently used to to shoot the shit out of people -- you AND the perp should suffer the HIGHEST penalties allowed.

and 'properly' from my perspective means they can NOT steal them -- or take them from the premises.

[eqfan592]

20. So you expect a security level...

...greater than that of most banks. Interesting, yet unreasonable, unless you are suggesting government subsidies for heavy gun safes for gun owners. Otherwise, I got the best I can afford.

I wonder if you would apply the same standards to other items that are regularly stolen and yet also have the ability to be "locked up" and are also used in crimes.

[xchrom]

21. if you can't afford better -- then you better not own them.

it goes with the territory.

[eqfan592]

23. So the poor can't be armed.

Interesting. I wonder if you understand the racist roots of your philosophy.

[xchrom]

24. ...

:rofl: i love it when gunners equate the rights to actually being to the right to own a thing.

or nearby -- the right to own a human?

you people never cease to amuse.

[eqfan592]

25. So your argument is as follows....

...the right to keep and bear arms is separate from actually having arms to bear, therefore the constitution does not actually protect a right to "keep" arms, but rather a right to.....keep arms?

Yep, I guess us "gunners" are just crazy! Who could stand up to logic like that!

[X_Digger]

26. Disparate Impact / Effect..

ie, legally mandated "responsible ownership" = must spend lots of money

No guns for the homeless or the poor, which are more likely to be a minority.

[eqfan592]

27. Bingo!

I'm surprised this even has to be explained, given the recent battles against ID requirements for voting that many of us here were involved in. Unless you're going to make ID's free, then you can't have them as a requirement for voting. Same applies here.

[xchrom]

28. there's a lot of obvious racism in both yours and others

notion of money and race.

who holds the greatest percentage of poverty in this country?

clue -- it ain't ethnic minorities.

if all of racism is held up in primitve notions of colour and money then -- oy --

[eqfan592]

29. A higher percentage of minorities are below the poverty line...

...than whites. While this does not equate to a higher overall number, it is clear that poverty hits the minority community harder as a whole.

As for there being "racism" in anybodies post, you are the one wishing to eliminate the availability of firearms to the poor, which will hit the minority communities the hardest, per capita. I don't believe it's your intention to promote a raciest ideal, but when all know what the path to hell was paved with.

[xchrom]

31. why not belive that about me -- it's what i believe about you all.

i believe you and other gunners are pretty much bad for society -- and i'll always work in what you deem to be your worst interest -- because your BEST interest is in equating 'being' with a thing.

not unlike 'owning' A PERSON.

or denying a person equal protection -- from the police or the law -- etc --

if everything in society devolves only to the individual -- then we might as well dissolve society now.

[eqfan592]

33. I must confess....

...I really have no idea what your talking about. 'Owning' a person? What does that have to do with the current discussion? I've never heard this perspective of the anti-gun argument and I'm interested to hear more. Though I can't understand how you speak of denying equal protection when you yourself wish to deny equal access to a constitutional right. I know you are trying to say that making these laws is not the same as doing so, but it effectively IS doing that very thing.

Hmmm, is that really your entire argument? That making firearms prohibitively expensive is not the same as denying a group of people their rights? I wonder if you would feel the same if it suddenly cost money to vote.

[xchrom]

38. to me a cosntitutional right is the right to vote or the right not

to be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, creed, sex etc -- the right to own a thing -- we considered some people to be things for a very long time and defended it constitutionally -- and biblically and anything else you can think of for a very long time.

your gun is not a part of your person -- you own it -- it's an inanimate thing -- it's not livestock or any thing else.

you can't park umpteen rusting cars or mountains of garbage on your front lawn -- you may own all that -- but you will be required to remove it.

pretty much how i see a gun -- your mileage -- obviously -- will vary.

[eqfan592]

39. Interesting point.

But I believe slavery was ended because we stopped viewing people as being "things." Not because we stopped viewing a right to own things. (this is a bit simplified, I know)

An 'arm' (as in weapon, not body part) is an inanimate object. This is true. However, I have a specific, constitutional right to keep and bear that object. By making any right prohibitively expensive to exercise, you are effectively discriminating against the poorer segments of our society.

Slavery wasn't a problem because people thought they had a right to own things. Slavery was a problem because some thought that some people were things.

[paulsby]

55. SOME minorities

japanese americans, for example, have mucher higher average income than whites. but your point stands.

i agree with your point, though. it's like all the hysteria back in the day over "saturday night specials". iow, affordable handguns. oooh, can't have that. poor people might buy them!!! can't trust them poor people!

[eqfan592]

57. Indeed, you are correct in that Japanese Americans are the exception to the rule. (nt)

[X_Digger]

30. Simple question..

.. should the homeless be able to have firearms? Obviously they don't have the money for a safe, nor a house to put it in..

[xchrom]

34. i think the NRA and other fire arm advocacy groups should get busy and

arm the homeless.

[eqfan592]

35. Well now I am confused.

This is directly in contradiction to everything else you have been saying so far. Unless, of course, you were attempting to be sarcastic. But if that's the case, then the sarcasm wasn't really effective, as it only served to reduce the validity of your own point instead of the person who you were replying to.

[xchrom]

36. only the dimmest would find any invalidation there --

or have any call for the 'sarcasm' smiley.

[eqfan592]

37. Ahh yes....

...instead of countering the point, question the others intelligence. Maybe you aren't such a boring person at a debate after all. ;)

[X_Digger]

40. The NRA does support feeding the homeless..

"Hunters Volunteer Venison to Help Feed the Homeless

In the kitchen of the Frederick Rescue Mission, volunteers hoist table-sized trays of vegetables and stir vats of soup, preparing dinner for the 100 or so homeless people who eat three meals a day there. This week, there`s a new item on the menu: venison, courtesy of deer hunters in Frederick County. "

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?id=3270 (the wapo link appears to be dead)

The NRA also opposes expensive licensing schemes that disproportionally affect the poor.

[xchrom]

41. are there countless of these venison kitchens -- causing i'm just guessing

but compared to a nonviolent group like say -- salvation army -- who i do not like -- it's nothing -- and amounts to a pr stunt.

[X_Digger]

56. Happens most every year..

.. but I don't expect the NRA to be a homeless feeding operation, no.

(An aside- when I lived in Tennessee, there were always hunters donating butchered deer hams to local church food drives. Haven't seen that here in Texas, though- not sure if there aren't as many hunters, or what.)

[X_Digger]

47. And your answer is...? (re homeless?) n/t

[paulsby]

54. thankfully the law doesn't agree

blaming somebody for the guns used in a crime being stolen from their house, not secured in a fort knox safe is like blaming a rape victim because she dared to wear a dress. "it's HER FAULT. she ASKED FOR IT. she was dressed like a slut, your honor"

same perverse logic, in blaming the victim

[paulsby]

53. people who say we have no gun control are like people who claim we have unregulated capitalism

shockingly wrong.

[geckosfeet]

15. Focus should be on gun dealers and those who transfer ownership.

I am not so much worried about who is doing the buying in most states, there seems to be adequate regulation in the states that care to provide it.

However, dealers and sellers who evade state laws, and those who buy in states with little or no regulation then re-sell illegally are an issue.

[geckosfeet]

16. Virtually none? Where? This is not an accurate description of gun control laws.

It is more accurate to say that the level of gun control varies widely between states, with a few states having very little control, a few having very heavy regulation, and a wide spectrum in between.

[baldguy]

4. No doubt stolen or purchased from a "responsible gun owner" who will never be punished.

[xchrom]

6. +1

[eqfan592]

8. Post deleted by user.

[JonQ]

42. Are you implying that they should be punished?

Like if you legally own a car, have insurance, always drive the speedlimit and never drink and drive. But one night some crackheads steal it and plow through a bus filled with nuns and puppies, should you be liable for that? How about if you're a smoker and some kid beats you up and steals your cigarettes, should you be liable for his lung cancer 40 years later?

Keep in mind that cars and cigarettes kill far more people than guns in this country. Also consider the implications of charging people for crimes committed with their property after it was stolen.

[baldguy]

43. If they neglect to secure their weapons properly, thats exactly what should be done.

Guns are unlike any other consumer product in that their sole function is to kill. Responsible guns owners acknowledge this & take steps to secure their weapons when not in use and ensure that they can't be used by unauthorized persons.

Anything less shows a reckless disregard for public safety.

[eqfan592]

44. Define "secure their weapons properly" baldguy. This is thread number 2 where I've asked you. (nt)

[baldguy]

46. Asked & answered

You just can't admit that you painted yourself into a corner.

[eqfan592]

50. LOL! I did no such thing.

Maybe you should review our last conversation. I stated clearly, REPEATEDLY I might add, that I was confident in my safes ability to keep firearms from children and from guests in my home, but was doubtful that it would withstand a thief for long.

Also, as it turns out, my safe meets the state of California's requirements for safe storage of a firearm, which is the "gold standard" it would seem.

So really, baldguy, the only person "backed into" a corner is you. Let me lay it out for you. I've been upfront about my cabinets ability, and the only thing you've really said so far is that if I think a thief can still steal it, then it's not "properly secure." So I'm guessing, by your definition, the "gold standard" for firearm security, which is set by one of the most "anti-gun" states, isn't secure enough. So right now, the only definition available that would meet your requirements it seems is a storage system that can't be circumvented in any way, which is an impossibility.

I've invited you time and time again to lay out, in no unclear terms, what your idea of a safe storage system is. So far, the only hints you've provided would seem to establish an unreasonably high bar to meet your requirement.

So here is where you have your options. You can either admit that the California standards, and thus my cabinet, are indeed the minimum for a "properly secured" fire arms, and thus also admit then that even a "secured firearm" is susceptible to theft (which I would hope would lead you to also drop this entire line of reasoning from your arguments) or you can set an unreasonably high standard for gun storage. You could also just ignore all of this and go on with your life, if you so choose.

Ball's in your court, buddy.

[JonQ]

49. Define secured properly

hidden in a drawer, locked in a safe, froze in to carbonite, dismantled and and sent by the fastest horses available to the four corners of the earth to be buried no less than 6 ft deep at a crossroads?

How secure does your car have to be for you not to be guilty of the crimes committed with it once it's stolen? What if you have pesticides in the house (only exist to kill) and some kid steals those and dumps them in the local reservoir, that's your fault isn't it? Especially if they weren't securely locked up.

People seem to think that gun deaths are unique, that it's somehow more tragic when a person is killed with a gun than say, a baseball bat. To me they seem just as dead.


And I dislike the notion that someone who owns property is responsible for keeping the criminals from stealing it. And if he doesn't it's because he was criminally irresponsible.

In my opinion the theif does actually bear some of the blame for the act of theft, somewhere around 100%. Blaming someone for being robbed because they failed to secure their homes against all possible invasions smacks of blaming rape victims for "dressing that way". Yeah, both may have acted differently and who knows, that could have prevented the crime. But that doesn't mean it's fair to blame them. Nope, the criminal gets 100% of the blame 100% of the time.

[eqfan592]

51. I'm honestly begining to think...

...that some people feel the need to try to demonize gun owners so badly that they are willing to set up this line of reasoning in order to paint as many of us as possible as irresponsible. They never consider the fact that they would never dream of applying their line of reasoning to any other situation. They hate guns, they hate people who don't hate guns, and they feel guns are a "menace." Forget that many more people are killed in many different ways each year than by guns. That doesn't matter in the least. Guns. Are. The. Problem. At least in their myopic view.

[slackmaster]

48. And certainly the victim of any crime deserves to be punished

:eyes:

[iverglas]

22. "As with the rest of Chicago, It's illegal to register and own a handgun."

As is murder. Illegal.

Can you explain what you imagined your point to be?

That a whole lot of the so-called firearms control measures in the US are completely ineffective, for reasons that gun militants refuse to allow to be addressed?

Yup. No argument from me there.

[xchrom]

32. +1

[Indy Lurker]

45. I agree completely.

"a whole lot of the so-called firearms control measures in the US are completely ineffective"

Specifically the laws in Chicago that prevent citizens from owning handguns.

You can't blame Chicago gun dealers, as there are none. I'm not sure there are any gun dealers in Cook County.

[Taitertots]

52. The gun control laws are not the problem

North Dakota seems to be doing fine, not murdering each other with guns at all.

Maybe they should have more gang control laws. A gangster disciples block party, I can't imagine how that could go wrong.

[Tejas]

58. Looking at the article,

a couple of things caught my eye.

Okay, the crowd was gathering for a block party....starting at 1am in the morning? Well, the shots were fired at 1am, and the party hadn't even started yet?


Gangster Deciples?



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

The Gangster Disciples, originally Black Gangster Disciple Nation. is a street gang formed on the South-side of Chicago in the late 1960s


From a link on the above Wiki page:

http://www.ngcrc.com/bdprofile.html


The Black Disciples

by George Knox, Ph.D.

Coprighted 2004: National Gang Crime Research Center.

INTRODUCTION

The Black Disciples (BDs) are the Chicago "folks" gang that gained international notoriety in 1994 by executing its eleven-year-old member "Yummy".


----------------------------------------------------




*paging Mayor Daley and city council members*