Memorial Day Weekend: Chicago Body Count

Memorial Day weekend is when the Hunger Games begin in Chicago. The weather is warm and the gangs come out of hiding to catch an "opp lacking".

This year we had 5 killed and 32 shot with just over an hour remaining before the buzzer. This is down from previous years, but it could be because we had on and off rain all weekend.

For the month of May, 41 have been killed. 170 wounded.

YTD totals are 187 killed. 172 shot to death. 715 wounded.


Cheers....

It's Chicago.....I thought the weekend was going to be much worse than that actually.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Memorial Day weekend is when the Hunger Games begin in Chicago. The weather is warm and the gangs come out of hiding to catch an "opp lacking".

This year we had 5 killed and 32 shot with just over an hour remaining before the buzzer. This is down from previous years, but it could be because we had on and off rain all weekend.

For the month of May, 41 have been killed. 170 wounded.

YTD totals are 187 killed. 172 shot to death. 715 wounded.


Cheers....

Slow month... And maybe if they didn't shoot their guns sideways they get better shots...just saying.

Maybe they should outlaw guns in Chicago, or establish a progressive Government, that would fix the problem there.

a reply to: Edumakated

What, no source?

I guess when complaining about the murders in a big city with heavily restricted firearm rights (for law abiding citizens only) you wouldn't want one.

Let me guess- the majority of the criminals and criminalees were street thug gang bangers, too?
Is that statistic not covered in any reports, or just not cnn?

I suspect you meant to post this in the mud pit (insert elipsis)

originally posted by: rickymouse
It's Chicago.....I thought the weekend was going to be much worse than that actually.

Yeah, the numbers were down. We had on and off rain, so that probably kept people inside.

originally posted by: a325nt
a reply to: Edumakated

What, no source?

I guess when complaining about the murders in a big city with heavily restricted firearm rights (for law abiding citizens only) you wouldn't want one.

Let me guess- the majority of the criminals and criminalees were street thug gang bangers, too?
Is that statistic not covered in any reports, or just not cnn?

I suspect you meant to post this in the mud pit (insert elipsis)

www.heyjackass.com. All the data is there....

originally posted by: a325nt
a reply to: Edumakated

What, no source?

I guess when complaining about the murders in a big city with heavily restricted firearm rights (for law abiding citizens only) you wouldn't want one.

Let me guess- the majority of the criminals and criminalees were street thug gang bangers, too?
Is that statistic not covered in any reports, or just not cnn?

I suspect you meant to post this in the mud pit (insert elipsis)

I HAVE to ask...

What color is the sky in the world that you live in?

And why in your world do you have an internet connection but no access to a search engine?

By Sunday evening of Memorial Day weekend, Chicago police had responded to the shootings of 34 people, five of whom died of their injuries, officials said.

The grim tally grew as a shooting Sunday about 6 a.m. in the 1300 block of West Hastings Street left two dead and three injured. The shooting was possibly in retaliation for an earlier one in the same University Village neighborhood where large crowds had gathered, and which also left a man dead, investigators said.

Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for the Chicago Police Department, said detectives believe there is a connection between the two shootings — on the same block, hours apart — that in total killed three people and injured five more.

Chicago Tribune

/facepalm

a reply to: Edumakated

They might need a "clickable" link...........

Chicago Jackass website 😎

a reply to: Edumakated
I hate hearing the casualty numbers that come out of Chicago or anywhere for that matter. It's all so senseless to me that some have no regards for life whatsoever. Society is broken and there's not a gun law that could ever be written to fix it.

a reply to: Edumakated

How can anyone defend themselves and their families without nuclear weapons?

It does say "right to bear arms" it wasn't specific about just guns. Nukes are arms.

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Edumakated
I hate hearing the casualty numbers that come out of Chicago or anywhere for that matter. It's all so senseless to me that some have no regards for life whatsoever. Society is broken and there's not a gun law that could ever be written to fix it.

Actually, statistically, most areas are safer than they've been in decades. I live less than 50 miles from Chicago and hardly anyone gets murdered here. Move away from the damn place. Problem solved.

"Hey Martha! I've got a brilliant plan! The city we work and live in has the highest murder rate on the planet! Let's start a family and have kids here! Yay us! We're such geniuses!"

heyjackass.com...

The shot in the junk-o-meter says 4 this month. That's 4 taken out of the breeding cycle.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Edumakated

How can anyone defend themselves and their families without nuclear weapons?

It does say "right to bear arms" it wasn't specific about just guns. Nukes are arms.

I understand that the terms arms and armed generally mean you have non-specific weapon(s) in your possession. The Declaration of Independence states, " . . . unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" implies we have a right to protect our lives. The connotation with the statement "bear arms" esp. in connection to personal protection seems to indicate a weapon that is meant to be carried and held when used. An extension of your actual human arms more or less. So if it is light enough to carry and small enough to fire while held, then it should be covered.

Then again, arms used in a "well regulated militia" could be almost anything, but would have to be related to a citizen's service in a "regulated militia" and not for personal use and carried around for personal protection. In either case, a nuclear weapon is beyond what would be used in a militia or for personal protection, so I'd say that isn't a right protected by the constitution.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Edumakated

How can anyone defend themselves and their families without nuclear weapons?

It does say "right to bear arms" it wasn't specific about just guns. Nukes are arms.

I understand that the terms arms and armed generally mean you have non-specific weapon(s) in your possession. The Declaration of Independence states, " . . . unalienable Rights, that among these are Life" implies we have a right to protect our lives. The connotation with the statement "bear arms" esp. in connection to personal protection seems to indicate a weapon that is meant to be carried and held when used. An extension of your actual human arms more or less. So if it is light enough to carry and small enough to fire while held, then it should be covered.

Then again, arms used in a "well regulated militia" could be almost anything, but would have to be related to a citizen's service in a "regulated militia" and not for personal use and carried around for personal protection. In either case, a nuclear weapon is beyond what would be used in a militia or for personal protection, so I'd say that isn't a right protected by the constitution.

The fact you have to define it shows where legal definition and common sense often times have nothing in common.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Edumakated
I hate hearing the casualty numbers that come out of Chicago or anywhere for that matter. It's all so senseless to me that some have no regards for life whatsoever. Society is broken and there's not a gun law that could ever be written to fix it.

Actually, statistically, most areas are safer than they've been in decades. I live less than 50 miles from Chicago and hardly anyone gets murdered here. Move away from the damn place. Problem solved.

"Hey Martha! I've got a brilliant plan! The city we work and live in has the highest murder rate on the planet! Let's start a family and have kids here! Yay us! We're such geniuses!"

Chicago is quite safe and a beautiful city.

The reality is that practically all of the violence people read about is contained to the south and west sides of the city; areas no normal "civilian" would ever go unless they are a drug addict or gang banger. These areas are a good 7 to 10 miles away from the center city that people think of when you say "Chicago".

The violence is really unfortunate. Chicago really isn't the most violent city on a per capita basis. Many smaller cities are far more violent. Chicago just has a lot of shootings in raw numbers because it is a very large city. Small backwaters like Baton Rouge, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc are far more violent on a per capita basis.

a reply to: Edumakated

Sad.

I don't know if here is even a solution for this.

It self-perpetuates. These inner cities are an incubator for violence.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Edumakated

How can anyone defend themselves and their families without nuclear weapons?

It does say "right to bear arms" it wasn't specific about just guns. Nukes are arms.

....
Then again, arms used in a "well regulated militia" could be almost anything, but would have to be related to a citizen's service in a "regulated militia" and not for personal use and carried around for personal protection. In either case, a nuclear weapon is beyond what would be used in a militia or for personal protection, so I'd say that isn't a right protected by the constitution.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but, your statement that I bolded above is completely wrong. And, the SCOTUS confirmed that fact. The 2nd DOES include personal protections, without any requirement to be in a well regulated (meaning well trained, orderly) militia. Please educate yourself and stop spreading blatant lies and disinformation to push you personal agenda.


Thanks.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Then again, arms used in a "well regulated militia" could be almost anything, but would have to be related to a citizen's service in a "regulated militia" and not for personal use and carried around for personal protection.

I am so glad the wise men who wrote the constitution left us written records defining what they meant.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I live a good bit away from Chicago, but they’ve been migrating here from there. Two of my brothers were shot, one died during his 21st birthday due to a simple argument.

Crime may be down, but coming down slightly from sky high doesn’t mean things are good. They’re not.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Edumakated

Sad.

I don't know if here is even a solution for this.

It self-perpetuates. These inner cities are an incubator for violence.

It is cultural dysfunction. Unfortunately, it has become so pervasive that it is viewed as normal behavior. I don't think it will ever stop until the community as wholes says enough is enough and stops blaming others for the current predicament.

Honestly, I think you almost have to write off an entire generation(s) of people and just focus on the kids who are too young to have been compromised culturally.