8 dead among 52 shot across over weekend

[virginia mountainman]

Nope not in Bagdad, or Kabul...it's Chicago...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2415428,weekend-shooting-roundup-062110.article

I can't wait for next Monday...

[villager]

1. you missed the guy with the handgun who shot his family in a Del Taco in California

n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. That coward didn't miss,

unfortunately.

[Euromutt]

12. Is Bakersfield, CA in Chicago?

No, I don't think so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. What happened in Bakersfield, CA?

Bakersfield isn't in San Bernadino.

[Euromutt]

26. San Bernadino, my mistake; thanks for the correction

I got my "towns several dozen miles from Los Angeles with an upper-case B in them" mixed up.

Nevertheless, one thing Bakersfield and San Bernardino have in common is that they're at the other end of the erstwhile U.S. Route 66 from Chicago.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. So what's the answer ....

...more guns?

No thanks.

[TheWraith]

5. Is it better to insure that law-abiding citizens have no capability to defend themselves?

Clearly, criminals will be armed no matter what.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. "ensure" ...

I once saw an NRA poster in a gun shop: "Insure Your Gun Rights"

I pointed out to the gun salesman behind the counter that his poster was either illogical or incorrect. While the NRA does have firearm insurance they cannot "insure" your rights. How do you "insure" and abstract concept such as rights? Is there some monetary eqivalency that can be paid for compensation your civil rights? Of course not. On the other hand, the poster could mean to be saying that the NRA "ensures" gun rights through lobbying on behalf of gun owners. However the poster did not say "ensure" it said "insure".

He was not amused.

[TheWraith]

9. Whoops. Point taken.

Usually I'm good about that.

[spin]

7. Well, banning handguns hasn't worked out real well ...

Chicago's pointless handgun ban
City gun ordinances proved to be a failure

March 04, 2010|By Steve Chapman

When Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982, it was part of a trend. Washington, D.C., had done it in 1976, and a few Chicago suburbs took up the cause in the following years. They all expected to reduce the number of guns and thus curtail bloodshed.

District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer told The Washington Post in 2007, "It's a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you'll have." Nadine Winters, a member of the Washington City Council in 1976, said she assumed at the time that the policy "would spread to other places."

But the fad never really caught fire — even before last summer, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the D.C. law and cast doubt on the others, including the Chicago ordinance before the court Tuesday. The Second Amendment may kill such restrictions, but in most places, it wasn't needed to keep them from hatching in the first place.

Maybe that's because there were so many flaws in the basic idea. Or maybe it was because strict gun control makes even less sense at the municipal level than it does on a broader scale. At any rate, the policy turned out to be a comprehensive dud.

In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent — at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.

Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared with an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.

One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply

Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it..emphasis added

If we were starting out in a country with zero guns, it might be possible to keep such weapons away from bad guys. But that's not this country, which has more than 200 million firearms in private hands and a large, perpetual supply of legal handguns.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

Bans and prohibitions rarely work. The prohibition of alcohol under the Eighteenth Amendment proved a failure. More currently, our War on Drugs is an expensive waste of money with little beneficial results.

edited for spelling mistake

[Travis Coates]

10. Ok , what's your answer?

Given, that firearms laws as they exist right now haven't been shown to prevent a single crime, tell us what you would do to stop criminals from commiting crimes W/ guns?

[PavePusher]

21. Personal Choice.

That's always a good answer.

[spin]

4. Mayor Daley will place numerous hurdles in the path of anyone ...

who wants to own a handgun in his city. He'll push any SCOTUS ruling that overturns his handgun ban to the limits and beyond wasting more Chicago funds in court.

But eventually a few people will manage to legally obtain handguns and it will be very interesting to watch the crime rate in Chicago.

It's a shame that Mayor Daley will fight rather than allow Chicago citizens to purchase firearms as easily as people do in many other big cities in our nation.

I personally would like to see the Chicago police department sponsor shooting classes and familiarize people with firearm safety and legal self defense use. If that happened, I believe there would be a dramatic change in the violent crime rate. It happened years ago in Orlando, Florida.

In Orlando, Florida, in 1966 a series of brutal rapes swept the
community. Citizens reacted to the tripling in the rate of rape
over the previous year by buying handguns for self-defense; 200-300
firearms were being purchased each week from dealers, and an unknown
number more from private parties. The newspaper there, the _Orlando
Sentinel Star_, had an anti-gun editorial stance and tried to pressure
the local police chief and city government to stop the flow of arms.

When that tactic failed, the paper decided that in the interest of
public safety, they would sponsor a gun-training seminar in conjunction
with the local police. Plans were made for a one-day training course at
a local city park.

Plans were made for an expected 400-500 women. However,
more than 2500 women arrived, and brought with them every conceivable
kind of firearm. They had to park many blocks away, and the weapons
were carried in in purses, paper bags, boxes, briefcases, holsters,
and womens' hands. One police officer present said he'd never been so
scared in his life.

Swamped, the organizers hastily dismissed the women with promises for
a more thorough course with scheduled appointments. The course offered
was for three classes/week, and within 6 months, the Orlando police had
trained more than 6000 women in basic pistol marksmanship and the law
of self-defense.

The results?

In 1966 there were 36 rapes in Orlando, triple the 1965 rate. In 1967,
there were 4. Before the training, rape rates had been increasing in
Orlando as nationwide. 5 years after the training, rape was still
below pre-training levels in Orlando, but up 308% in the surrounding
areas, 96% for Florida overall, and 64% nationally.

Also in 1967, violent assault and burglary decreased by 25% in Orlando,
in addition to the rape reductions.

In 1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD FIRED HER WEAPON in self-defense. In
1967, NOT A SINGLE WOMAN HAD TURNED HER GUN ON HER HUSBAND OR BOYFRIEND.
(No data are available for later years.)
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Crime/Florida/Gun%20Ownership%20Stops%20Rape/

[jeepnstein]

6. Strict gun control is still the law in Chicago.

I predict the body count will be no different when it isn't the law anymore.

For the most part what you have with these shootings is criminals behaving in a criminal fashion. I fail to see where they will suddenly become even more out of control than they already are.

[gravity556]

11. Not possible!

There's no way anyone was shot with a pistol in Chicago-handguns are illegal there (unless you're among the privileged few) and you even need an FOID to purchase ammo. It must have been a meteor shower.

[Euromutt]

13. I'll tentatively agree with that

I'm not a big believer in the notion that the number of legally owned firearms makes a discernible difference in crime rates (and I'm also inclined to believe that it's the crime rates that influence the numbers of illegally owned firearms, not vice-versa). But taking that as a given, it follows that I don't think public safety is a legitimate reason to restrict citizens' freedom to legally own firearms.

Certainly, Chicago's comparatively tight restrictions on firearm ownership don't seem to be doing a damn thing to prevent violent crime.

[jeepnstein]

25. The public safety thing is always a bit of a joke to me.

The last thing I want to rely upon to determine if a subject is armed or not is their decision to comply with a registration law. It's far more sensible to assume everyone in the room is packing until you determine otherwise. The registration of guns does nothing to enhance officer safety.

As far as lawful citizens with arms, well, I typically find them erring on the side of caution when they come into contact with a cop. I once had to set up a surveillance on a drug case where the property owner met me at his front door open carrying a .45. He offered to put it away before taking me out to his back forty where the cultivation was taking place. Instead I just made him raise his right hand and promise not to shoot me. I can recall one incident where a fellow was having an adrenaline dump and had a bit of trouble getting on the same page as me but it wasn't anything requiring one to go Barney Fife on him.

[onehandle]

14. Yes. More guns will change everything.

The dynamic of big cities is so totally clear.

Totally.

[X_Digger]

15. Compare to DFW..

30% more population, but ~55% higher murder rate. Fancy that.

[onehandle]

17. Wow! That paints the entire picture.

You have explained the entire scenario of the dynamics of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Chicago with diamond-ish precision.

[X_Digger]

18. So what other 'dynamics' would you like to look at, hrmm?

Unemployment rates are 12 v 8, neither is homogeneous in racial makeup, with a wide variety of cultures in both places. Home ownership is more prevalent in DFW, average time of residence is higher in Chicago metro.

Hell of a lot more guns in DFW than Chicago, Chicago has a hell of a lot more drug addiction treatments, both in number and in rate.

What 'dynamic of big cities' would you like to compare?

[onehandle]

19. No, you covered it all in your initial response.

Bravo.

[X_Digger]

20. So backing away with tail firmly planted betwixt legs, yes? n/t

[PavePusher]

22. Now you're not just moving the goal posts...

You're taking them down.

How telling.

[jazzhound]

28. He's studied the tactics of his heros.

When Hemenway et al had all of their "arguments" attacking the Kleck/Gertz defensive gun use study destroyed, they switched to a brand new argument: that there was no way to accurately measure defensive gun use!

Birds of a feather.............

[jody]

16. Chicago politicians can't stop domestic terror there but they know how to stop it in Afghanistan.

Pure unadulterated BS, bring our troops home as quickly as safety permits and spend the money to fight domestic problems.

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Chicago corruption

Is so endemic, so ingrained and has been around so long it has outlasted industries, politicians, and centuries. For example, by 1900, the Stockyard in Chicago was 475 acres, contained 50 miles of road, and had 130 miles of track along its perimeter. At the turn of the century, Chicago's meatpacking industry employed more than 25,000 people and produced 82 percent of the meat consumed in the United States. In addition to processing meat, the packinghouses made creative and lucrative use of slaughterhouse by-products. They built factories to manufacture items such as leather, soap, fertilizer, glue, imitation ivory, gelatin, shoe polish, buttons, perfume, and violin strings.

In the face of all this, a few North Dakota ranchers tried to establish a meat packing plant to process and send meat to markets in the east. This would produce more income then sending livestock to Chicago for slaughter. But all the trains went through Chicago. Their shipments were sabotaged. Rail cars left on siding until the ice melted. Their processing plant in Medora "mysteriously" burned down. The owner of the Elk Horn Ranch suffered some of these depredations. He was also disgusted by other aspects of the Chicago meat-packing business. To their dismay, he was, years later, able to do something about it. As President, Theodore Roosevelt, called upon Congress to pass a law establishing the Food and Drug Administration and, for the first time, setting up federal inspection standards for meat.

[Katya Mullethov]

27. Not a very good ratio

Everybody gets in too big a hurry these days .