Murder in Chicago is murder in America (Aurora, Time: to buy, theatre)

[linicx]

Originally Posted by edsg25

If you control guns, there are fewer of them and they fall into fewer hands. Nobody questions that you use a firm arm safely CSS; you're not the issue. It's the easy availablility of guns that is.

Guns kill; dead is dead. We are in a sorry state when a *tween* smart enough to steal a gun, or smart enough steal the money to buy the gun, cannot read a street address. The gun business is neither about the Constitution of the United States, nor is it about th NRA or protecting our children. It is about a yellow-bellied, lazy, self-serving, tenured, Congress that is so terrified of being ousted it does nothing except take its annual bonus and utter sound bytes. It we can fire a Congress that flops around like a hooked fish en masse, we can pass PUBLIC SAFETY laws that protect children, protects our Constitution, and leaves the outliers - the farmers, hunters, and ranchers - armed.

Our Million Member Militia (NRA) is not to be feared; it is the weak laws. It is the weak politicians that won't stand up as a unified body long enough to SHOUT two words with conviction: "¡NO MÁS!" (NO MORE!)

The mere idea that a mixed race POTUS, or a Jewish Mayor of Chicago, should be demonized for a depression that had just barely began to creep into the collective American conscience in the mid-90s, or the illegal alien influx that began long before the 1960s, is one more indication of just how badly public education, big business, religious political leaders, and yellow-bellied Congress has mislead We The People. The collective mortgage on the THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE is under water.

[SCCP]

I attended the City Council meeting immediately after the Supreme Court handed down the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision. It was an interesting session, to say the least. Many of the aldermen delivered emotional diatribes about gun violence that could only be described as preaching to the choir (and I say this as more or less a member of the choir). Then along came Alderman Burke. Love him or hate him, he can speak. Burke pointed out that the best weapon for home defense is a double-barreled shotgun. The intruder is more likely to be scared off before you shoot, and the shots... well... they won't miss! Burke made this point because shotguns and rifles HAD been allowed by the otherwise-restrictive Chicago ordinance at issue in McDonald.

I guess this goes to the heart of what I find to be so frustrating about the current state of the gun debate. Hunting and home defense, the two Second Amendment staples, only require citizen access to long-barrel shotguns and rifles. Said weapons are virtually never used by criminals. I realize that shotguns can be sawed off, but the occasional once-legal, now-modified shotgun is still preferable (in my opinion) to the automatic weapons and handguns that account for almost all offensive violence in our cities.

Unfortunately (IMHO), the NRA and Co. have been very successful at making gun control an all-or-nothing issue, with most Americans (facing that option) opting for the "nothing" approach. There is a strong belief among more zealous Second Amendment types that an armed citizenry is needed as a last resort against government tyranny. But the modern day minutemen view is almost certainly in the minority, and so "all or nothing" is the winning strategy.

With all of the above being said, I doubt that local (rather than national) gun control will ever be very effective. The CPD can't set up customs gates on the edge of the city. They are limited to busting people for unlicensed carry on routine stops and the like.

[linicx]

What I am about to say would not be allowed in Chicago, or in most communities under any circumstances. The fact remains a gaggle of geese, and a pair of non-sporting dogs will keep intruders off your property and out of your house.

A US Marshal and/or the CPD SWAT with a warrants can enter a home and seize guns, contraband, money, apparatus, computers, etc.. and arrest. Unlike the bounty hunter, state and local LEO, the U.S.Marshal has full authority anywhere in the world.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SCCP

With all of the above being said, I doubt that local (rather than national) gun control will ever be very effective. The CPD can't set up customs gates on the edge of the city. They are limited to busting people for unlicensed carry on routine stops and the like.

could logic dictate anything other than what you said? by any measure, you seem to have stated the irrefutable. the guns are in people's hands. what could the city of chicago and CPD possibly do that would make a substantive difference in that reality?

one almost feels like shouting at the top of one's lungs: what exactly do you folks want from your city? how on earth can an american city in 2012 deliver the undeliverable?

what could the city possibly do? it is severely limited. and even with those severe limitations, it is also tremendously underfunded as is the state government. why? both city and state depend on funding that comes in from Washington. that money seems nowhere to be found. the neoconservatives who alternatingly either run or government or put it in gridlock don't believe in taxation to better the commons. they don't even believe in government itself; they go along with Grover Norquest's desire to be able to "make government so small that it can be drowned in the bathtub." what money our government does have goes to fund wars. the very money that could go to Chicago designed to help reduce violence goes instead to places like Iraq and Afghanistan where its job is seemingly to create violence. go figure.

since the 2008 meltdown, there is even less of the commodity to go around. Cities and states see little of what once did flow (or trickle) down to them.

at the same while, the functions of municipal government have been reduced to the proverbial cleaning the garbage off the streets and turning on the water spigots. Municipal government is an exceedingly small role today, limited in scope and incapable of dealing with larger issues.

others have mentioned cities far worse than Chicago in the overall ability to deal with guns and violence as well as a host of other issues. Places like St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland come to mind, but they have plenty of company.

Yet in all those cases, one can hardly blame the city and its citizens. For Chicago no more made its gun problem than Detroit is responsible for the shrinking auto industry that no longer provides jobs the way it used to. Detroit did not destroy the power of the unions and prevent them from being a balancing voice to the corporations. those corporations are 1%ers and Detroit has no ability to prevent their control in Washington and their ability to outsource jobs overseas or to keep the few that remain here anywhere near the salaries they generated during the golden age when Detroit was spinning and the country was at its peak as those high paying union jobs enriched the economy. In fact, white collar New York never really thrived as well as it did as the time when blue collar Detroit was pumping on all cylinders.

Detroit did not create the modern Detroit just as locally Gary did not create the modern Gary. These are national tragedies, not local ones and we are creating more and more of them today. The degree of poverty in this nation grows and continues to be unnoticed, unseen, out of sight and out of mind.

this is a national sickness, as are the very guns that line Chicago's streets.

[tollfree]

Always found it interesting that a country so fascinated with a "war on terror" makes guns accessible to basically anyone. Half these mass shooters usually have some sort of history with mental problems yet still get them.

There's a classic argument "They're going to get them regardless". I disagree, it would require these nerds to know some truly dangerous people, and they probably don't. If they did - it still need to be made as difficult as possible.

Yet, Americans love guns like non-dairy creamer. It will never change.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

Always found it interesting that a country so fascinated with a "war on terror" makes guns accessible to basically anyone. Half these mass shooters usually have some sort of history with mental problems yet still get them.

There's a classic argument "They're going to get them regardless". I disagree, it would require these nerds to know some truly dangerous people, and they probably don't. If they did - it still need to be made as difficult as possible.

Yet, Americans love guns like non-dairy creamer. It will never change.

not so friend, australia and england have both banned guns with skyrocketing crime and violence as a result. gun ban will not prevent black on black violence.
32% of all homocides do not involve firearms at all yet at every CDF post gun ban is advocated.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

not so friend, australia and england have both banned guns with skyrocketing crime and violence as a result. gun ban will not prevent black on black violence.
32% of all homocides do not involve firearms at all yet at every CDF post gun ban is advocated.

What's london's homicide rate?

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Lost a good friend who was toying around with his rifle and shot himself in the eye socket. You own a gun and you are about 4 times more likely to use it or have some sort of accident. It ain't all sugar and spice, though I know some city folk who get a gun and then try to put on their best redneck act-trying to front like they have grown up around guns their whole life and what not. LoL.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I own over a dozen guns, none of which I use for home protection. A fire extinguisher and big honking Mag Light comprise my home protection, both are FAR more likely to come in handy than a gun in any home protection situation.

Feel the same way, I keep the Louisville Slugger close.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

Always found it interesting that a country so fascinated with a "war on terror" makes guns accessible to basically anyone. Half these mass shooters usually have some sort of history with mental problems yet still get them.

There's a classic argument "They're going to get them regardless". I disagree, it would require these nerds to know some truly dangerous people, and they probably don't. If they did - it still need to be made as difficult as possible.

Yet, Americans love guns like non-dairy creamer. It will never change.

if fire arms were difficult to obtain, changes are "they're going to get them regardless" doesn't really hold water. guns, like all items, are made on a supply and demand basis. if you make it hard to get guns, you have seriously affected their production. the very act of reducing the supply of guns out there obviously affects how many guns get into people's hands.