Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jeez Louise thats...wow. Gang violence is out of control there.

http://time.com/#71446/chicago-gun-violence-easter-weekend-45-people-shot/

Feds Step In After 45 People Shot in Chicago Over Easter Weekend
Per Liljas 3:50 AM ET 
A Chicago Police Department recruit salutes during a graduation ceremony in Chicago, Illinois, April 21, 2014.
Jim Young—Reuters
Nine people were killed and 36 injured in shootings over the weekend, causing the newly formed Violent Crimes unit to focus on the endemic gun culture

At least nine people were killed and at least 36 wounded in Chicago over the Easter weekend, prompting a newly formed federal unit to step in to help tackle the city’s pervasive culture of gun violence.

Five of the victims were children between 11 and 15 who were playing in a park next to an elementary school, the Chicago Tribune reports. The youngest had just returned from church and shared Easter dinner with relatives when a car pulled up and opened fire. She was struck by two bullets, one of them puncturing her lung and breaking her collarbone, leaving her in a critical condition.

In a Monday statement, a prosecutorial unit called the Violent Crimes section said it will put its full focus on how to use federal statutes to combat Chicago’s endemic gang and gun problem, giving the city its nickname “Chiraq.” The shootings over the weekend brought the total number of suspected homicide this year to 90, two less than during the same period last year.

“This doesn’t wipe out what has happened over the last two years,” police superintendent Garry McCarthy told CBS Local, alluding to the fact that the murder rate in Chicago dropped from 516 in 2012 to 415 last year. McCarthy has repeatedly urged lawmakers to harshen state and federal gun laws, but Illinois has moved in the other direction, recently sending out the state’s first permits allowing residents to carry concealed firearms.

more here.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-rahm-emnauel-chicago-crime-gun-violence-20140421,0,7071779.story

Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

Yeah, 'cause that's the lesson we should be taking from this story.


HA!

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

I doubt facts like that will stop the people who tirelessly push for more laws that only affect those who follow the law in the first place.

Gang members will continue to act outside the law, they are already prohibited from owning firearms under current laws, and fail BG checks due to prevailance of criminal records, and still will get their guns from the same place they get their drugs.

Gang members will be even more agressive in areas where they know the public is diarmed, as we see constantly in gun bancities like chichago and DC.

If gun control actually worked, those two cities would be utopias free of any gun deaths, yet factually, despite the tough laws, the crime is much worse.

Not saying the laws caused the crime directly, but they have no reductive effect at all, and tangetially it bars lawful citizens from protecting themselves which can exacerbate the harm on victims of crime.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

BINGO

2nd post as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
but they have no reductive effect at all

Except that they do, the less firearms there are the harder it is for criminals to get hold of them and those that do will, or at least should, suffer harsher penalties. Its virtually impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and legislation takes time to have an effect but attempting to claim that gun control laws have no effect at all, or even make things worse, if sheer folly. All you need to do is look at the UK's extremely low gun crime rate alongside its comparatively harsh gun control laws.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the lesson we should be taking from this story.


HA!

I understand that it may seem callous to disregard the violence that happened and talk about firearm politics but... that is what this article was about. It's not, "45 people shot over the Easter weekend" or "Tragedy strikes Chicago as 45 people were gunned down over weekend". No. It's about the Federal government's role in trying to curtail the violence.

@Palindrome.

Except the US isn't like the UK. The United Kingdom doesn't have the same gun culture as the US. We loves ourselves our 'Ks and ARs. Gun laws don't work as well here because of how damned many of them there are out there. If one state bans them the criminals will buy them elsewhere. Or they'll just keep their guns because why give them up? If the entire country gets a blanket ban criminals will still be able to access weaponry. It'll just be on the black market instead from an actual store. Or they'll buy them off of people who didn't want to give up their gun.

Perhaps the 2nd amendment was a genie that should've never been released from it's bottle and that we may have to accept this rate of violence for the foreseeable future. OR maybe the violence is the result of a failed social-political system.

The drug trade and gang violence need to be addressed.

(Frazzled sad Frazzled not post to begin another good gun/bad gun thread)

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

Allow me to counter absurdity with absurdity....

Clearly, those kids needed to be armed to properly defend themsleves.

Or how about

Every playground needs to have armed security guards to protect the children. Won't someone think of the children!

/absurdity


Now in reality I think we can all agree that firearms are not the root cause of the issue of violence in Chicago, they are merely a symptom.

 Palindrome wrote:
Except that they do,

which is a lie, as within the cities inside of the states (so comparing apples to apples) places like chicago and DC have tough gun bans/laws, yet more gun crime then cities with less gun laws.

If you were correct, those cities would actually be safer.

As it is, the cities mentioned, the harsher gun laws have had no actual effect on crime. My country has lower gun crime, because it has ALWAYS had lower gun crime, not because we passed some law's 15-20 years ago.

You are correct in that if every gun magically dissapeared, yes, gun crime would go down. Same with if every knife, car, swimming pool dissapeared, all the deaths from those sources would go away as well.

If you were petitioning for bans on any of those other death causing things at least you wouldnt be hypocritical, but you dont, so you are.

If 5 people were shot to death in calgary this last week, every one of you gun banners would be foaming at the mouth at how canadian gun laws are not tough enough, and more bans/laws are needed, despite the already harsh bans/laws.

But since those 5 people were mass murdered by someone with a knife, you dont care enough to promote tougher knife bans/laws, not one bit.

Because you only care about the tool, not the crime, for some reason.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
The drug trade and gang violence need to be addressed.

yup, but thats too much like a solution. Much harder to adress the real issues then it is to scapegoat and blame guns and their owners for the acts of criminals.

If only the guns had had guns to stop the gun men from gunning with them.

@TheCustomLime: Yes, one would have thought that after looking at the UK.

 easysauce wrote:

which is a lie,

Is it now.

 easysauce wrote:


Gang members will continue to act outside the law, they are already prohibited from owning firearms under current laws, and fail BG checks due to prevailance of criminal records, and still will get their guns from the same place they get their drugs.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22303972/gang-members-get-guns-at-gun-shows

Chicago's problem isn't gun culture, it's gang culture.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


Gang members will continue to act outside the law, they are already prohibited from owning firearms under current laws, and fail BG checks due to prevailance of criminal records, and still will get their guns from the same place they get their drugs.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22303972/gang-members-get-guns-at-gun-shows

They're not buying from dealers, but rather from private sales.

 Easy E wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

Allow me to counter absurdity with absurdity....

Clearly, those kids needed to be armed to properly defend themsleves.

Or how about

Every playground needs to have armed security guards to protect the children. Won't someone think of the children!

/absurdity


Now in reality I think we can all agree that firearms are not the root cause of the issue of violence in Chicago, they are merely a symptom.

Maybe what I said was a little stupid but I firmly believe that blanket gun ban laws dont work because they are trying to address a problem by brushing it under a rug. So yeah, you are correct.

As for the other people saying that "If it works in the UK it works in the US", that sentiment shows a great level of ignorance towards the American culture, socio-economic system and lifestyle. I could write an essay on the topic but in short most of the gun violence in America isnt the result of people being compelled by a firearm to murder. These issues are the result of entire communities of disenfranchised people, a lucrative drug trade and poor care of the mentally ill. A wholesale ban of firearms may make it somewhat harder for these sods to get a gun but the problems are still there. And theyll still express themselves in other ways.

The guns wont go away just because Uncle Sam said so either. People in the US love their guns. To them it is a symbol of freedom in more ways than one. To many, their Berreta is the only thing stopping the government from taking their rights. You wont get them to give them up by taking away a right.

 reds8n wrote:

 easysauce wrote:


Gang members will continue to act outside the law, they are already prohibited from owning firearms under current laws, and fail BG checks due to prevailance of criminal records, and still will get their guns from the same place they get their drugs.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22303972/gang-members-get-guns-at-gun-shows

So where are gang members getting their drugs from?

Pharmacists?

Sure I could say that, and its true, but it would be disengenuous of me to pretend like it is the biggest source, or the reason why america has a drug problem.


So while some criminals do buy guns from private sellers, its the vast minority (just as the vast minority of street drugs come from pharmacies, some do, but the vast majority dont)

The other reason why your arguement doesnt hold water, is that they are still buying the guns illegally at gun shows, as they are breaking laws ALREADY in place against criminals buying firarms.

ENFORCING the existing laws against felons purchasing firarms, no matter if that is private or not, would be the solution here, simply having a phone # to call to do a BG check on a buyer or someone entering a gun show would screen out those with records, while not creating a de facto registry.

At the risk of not adding to the gun control debate and perhaps injecting some background info to this story

Chicago's gang violence problem is perhaps former Mayor daley's true and lasting legacy. He tried to cut the head of and the body will wither away approach. He was actually very very successful and cracking down and locking up the leadership of Chicago's gangs....the problem is in the power vacuum it created we ended up with a bunch of brainless "thug" level gang members quickly moving up the ranks. Which as a result you get a bunch of brainless bangers in leadership positions solving problems the only way a "thug" knows


This will blow over just like it has the last 50 times, once every couple weeks / months Chicago gets some huge spike in gang violence, the Feds threaten to step in, someone stands tossing around the idea of deploying the national guard then it al fades into the background for a strech

now in regards to the gun control debate. I dont see how tougher gun laws is going to solve our problems. The gangs were mowing down people in the street long before IL started to soften its laws.

On the upside Chicago was also proclaimed the funniest city in the US. So they have that going for them.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

But it worked so well with drugs...

 Palindrome wrote:
Except that they do, the less firearms there are the harder it is for criminals to get hold of them and those that do will, or at least should, suffer harsher penalties. Its virtually impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and legislation takes time to have an effect but attempting to claim that gun control laws have no effect at all, or even make things worse, if sheer folly. All you need to do is look at the UK's extremely low gun crime rate alongside its comparatively harsh gun control laws.

Piers Morgan, is that you?
Are you aware that Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US?

 Frazzled wrote:
The drug trade and gang violence need to be addressed.

(Frazzled sad Frazzled not post to begin another good gun/bad gun thread)

Those two go hand in hand and need addressed. Also more investment in mental health services would not go amiss.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, 'cause that's the lesson we should be taking from this story.


HA!

I understand that it may seem callous to disregard the violence that happened and talk about firearm politics but... that is what this article was about. It's not, "45 people shot over the Easter weekend" or "Tragedy strikes Chicago as 45 people were gunned down over weekend". No. It's about the Federal government's role in trying to curtail the violence.

You do realize that it is a "newly formed federal unit" which announced that "it will put its full focus on how to use federal statutes to combat Chicago's endemic gang and gun problem", right?

It's not saying that the federal government has had any role in trying to curtail the violence or anything of that nature. It's an announcement that this new federal prosecutorial unit, "Violent Crimes Unit", is going to be trying to use federal statutes against gangs.

So all the vic's were hit from initial gunfire? None of them were vic's from return fire?

Jebus they're better then the Insurgents..

 Jihadin wrote:
So all the vic's were hit from initial gunfire? None of them were vic's from return fire?

Jebus they're better then the Insurgents..

Your basic Insurgents probably have the same level of training with firearms as your average gang member. I.e. not much.

Ugh, I don't own any guns, but seriously guys, criminals will always find a way. Always. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens won't change that. I'm not saying it'll make it safer or more dangerous, but it won't change a thing for criminals. Besides, even if it did work, they'd use something else. Like a knife in a densely populated area where you can't see the assailant. But keep on fighting the good fight. , despite how laughably wrong you have it.

Again, I don't own any guns, I don't care about guns, but at least I get the fact that criminals will find a way. If you don't get that, then open your eye, sunshine.

 Ahtman wrote:
On the upside Chicago was also proclaimed the funniest city in the US. So they have that going for them.

That bodes well for the 36 gunshot wound survivors - laughter, of course, being the best medicine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Well, gentlemen, it would seem making firearms illegal doesn't stop criminals for shooting people. What a surprise.

 Palindrome wrote:
Except that they do, the less firearms there are the harder it is for criminals to get hold of them and those that do will, or at least should, suffer harsher penalties. Its virtually impossible to eradicate gun crime completely and legislation takes time to have an effect but attempting to claim that gun control laws have no effect at all, or even make things worse, if sheer folly. All you need to do is look at the UK's extremely low gun crime rate alongside its comparatively harsh gun control laws.

Piers Morgan, is that you?
Are you aware that Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US?

To clarify, for those that might not know...

To legally posses a firearm in IL:

1 you need a FOID card. That is a firearm owners ID card. You need one of these before you can even go over to the gun counter, and ask to handle the gun you are intending to purchase, or even think about purchasing legally. (You can stare it in though the glass all you like if you don't have one.) To get one, you pay the $10 fee, fill out the paperwork, get your picture taken, and go through a 30 day background check done by the police. If you pass, you get your card in the mail. This card is good for 10 years or 5 years, if you got it before 2008. You are disqualified if you've had mental issues on record, assault/battery, and you can get one if you are under 21, but it's harder to get.

2. Buying a firearm, (using a store as an example) You produce your FOID card and ask to see the firearm you want to purchase. You fill out more paperwork, hand over the money and purchase your firearm. You then wait 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun before you can take the firearm home with you. If you want to buy ammo, you have to produce your FOID card, but you can take it with you right away.

Private ownership sales still have to do the FOID card verification and then have to keep a record for 10 years.

3. Only in the last year has IL allowed concealed carry, and you must take a training class to qualify. Any law enforcement agency can deny you a concealed carry permit.

4. Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or suppressors is prohibited. Possession of short-barreled rifles is permitted only for those who have an ATF Curios and Relics license or are a member of a military reenactment group.

Chicago Specific:

1. Assault weapons are banned.
2. Magazine restrictions for pistols and long guns.
3. In a home where a person younger than 21 is present, all guns must be secured with a trigger lock, or stored unloaded in a locked container separate from the ammunition, or secured to the body of the legal owner
4. An individual may not purchase more than one firearm in a 30 day period.
5. You cannot buy firearms within Chicago limits, which was declared unconstitutional and the city now has 6 months from Jan to write new laws.

It used to be that Chicago had banned handguns entirely. It didn't really change anything.

 Schlyne wrote:
3. Only in the last year has IL allowed concealed carry, and you must take a training class to qualify.

Atop that, the class you must take in IL is absolutely no joke. A few gun shops had sponsored the training courses and they were pretty loosely run; eventually this was caught wind of and IL wound up cancelling the permits of the people enrolled in those classes and requiring them to retake the courses. I follow a pretty solid gun shop from Moline that I sometimes shop with and use their range, and he had been (accurately) predicting this would happen for at least 2 months prior to this happening; the next week was different versions of told-you-so posts on Facebook.

 Ouze wrote:

 Schlyne wrote:
3. Only in the last year has IL allowed concealed carry, and you must take a training class to qualify.

Atop that, the class you must take in IL is absolutely no joke. A few gun shops had sponsored the training courses and they were pretty loosely run; eventually this was caught wind of and IL wound up cancelling the permits of the people enrolled in those classes and requiring them to retake the courses. I follow a pretty solid gun shop from Moline that I sometimes shop with and use their range, and he had been (accurately) predicting this would happen for at least 2 months prior to this happening; the next week was different versions of told-you-so posts on Facebook.

If it's the shop I'm thinking of, tell them a friend in Nebraska says hello next time you stop in They should know who're talking about.

The reason Chicago is a big city, with the head offices of many major US companies is because it sits at the centre of a major logistical network of roads and rail. This is also the reason it has a major problem with criminal gangs - when moving drugs, well lots of roads and routes move through Chicago.

There is simply no solving that issue with anything as peripheral and minor as gun policy. Tighten gun controls and guns will still flow in to the city (major logistical hub, remember). Relax gun laws and you'll have lots of suburbanites sleeping easy with their new toys, while kids on the streets will pop each other to gain control of a patch of turf. Meanwhile the drug will flow through, and the violence will continue.

 sebster wrote:
The reason Chicago is a big city, with the head offices of many major US companies is because it sits at the centre of a major logistical network of roads and rail. This is also the reason it has a major problem with criminal gangs - when moving drugs, well lots of roads and routes move through Chicago.

There is simply no solving that issue with anything as peripheral and minor as gun policy. Tighten gun controls and guns will still flow in to the city (major logistical hub, remember). Relax gun laws and you'll have lots of suburbanites sleeping easy with their new toys, while kids on the streets will pop each other to gain control of a patch of turf. Meanwhile the drug will flow through, and the violence will continue.

I re-read this post like eighteen times, certain that there had to be some sarcastic anti-American line in there I was sure I was missing. What a well thought out, coherent, and balanced statement.

When it comes to gun control, there has to be a balance. Total-no-guns is completely unacceptable, but the ease with which criminals could acquire guns in other settings (the aforementioned gun shows) is likewise unacceptable.

On a humorous note, I'm an Illinoisan and I'd never heard Chicago called 'Chiraq.' I lol'ed.

 Jimsolo wrote:
When it comes to gun control, there has to be a balance.

The problem is that we can't even have that conversation. As soon as it is brought up the people that only see any reasonable regulation discussion as the same as outright banning of all weapons go indiscriminately insane, and there are networks, organizations, and politicians more than willing to prey on them for clout and money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
On a humorous note, I'm an Illinoisan and I'd never heard Chicago called 'Chiraq.' I lol'ed.

I don't live in Illinois and I have heard it called that before, but then I am hipper and cooler than most.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I re-read this post like eighteen times, certain that there had to be some sarcastic anti-American line in there I was sure I was missing. What a well thought out, coherent, and balanced statement.

I'll make sure I throw in something about Americans being stupid cowboys next time

When it comes to gun control, there has to be a balance. Total-no-guns is completely unacceptable, but the ease with which criminals could acquire guns in other settings (the aforementioned gun shows) is likewise unacceptable.

Yes, definitely. There needs to be a balance, because on the one hand it just makes sense to place some measure of control on dangerous implements that highly effective at killing people, but on the other hand there are millions of people who want to use guns for all manner of legal and often objectively awesome activities, and they should be jerked around as little as possible.

But wherever that balancing point is, it isn't going to impact rates of gang violence one way or the other.

On a humorous note, I'm an Illinoisan and I'd never heard Chicago called 'Chiraq.' I lol'ed.

It just makes me think of the French former president.