10-year-old boy among victims as more than 20 shot on one Chicago day

I am actually for "Backround Checks" why? Because I live in the stricted state for gun control, and I obtained my gun's legally. In regards to Obamamama's bill..... I'm glad it was shot down as I heard there were certain inquiries inside that bill that were unconstitutional and that's where I draw my line.

Backround checking everyone who owns a gun IMO is good in my book. That would keep a lot of guns out of wacko's hands..... Heck some non wacko's might turn wacko later on... Again a paradox on gun control....

They can't go door to door and search for guns..... Or can they?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess we need more gun control....but wait guns are already illegal in Chicago, so what is the real problem here?

As we see recent violence using everything and anything at hand, guns started to take a back seat, but in one of the most gun controlled city they are plentiful and used daily.

At some point we need to start blaming culture and I don't mean American culture but subcultures like one would find in Chicago and many other violent places, guns or no guns.

usnews.nbcnews.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 2-5-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Blame subcultures huh? You mean Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities right? Yes let's blame minorities for the slaughter of thousands of innocent kids.

Last time I checked almost all of the mass shootings have been carried out by white men.

Perhaps it's time we banned white men from owning guns.

reply to post by muse7


Take the amount of people killed from shootings by white men versus the other half. Don't be soo blind as to let emotion take over your train of thought.

a sapiens sapiens issue

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Additionally, any useful analysis would look at the rate of violent crime as a whole. Obviously making it harder to obtain a firearm will reduce gun related crimes

Exactly. What's so hard to comprehend then? You just said it.

- but does that reduce the overall rate of violent crime?

We're talking about GUNS here. The purpose of this thread was to prove gun control doesn't work. You and I have just shown that it does. Thanks.

No, we haven't.. So you're saying if we take away GUNS and GUN CRIME drops, but at the same take all other VIOLENT CRIMES rise dramatically, that's success?

So you're ok if people are being killed, raped, stolen from, and kidnapped, so long as no guns are involved. Check!

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
No, we haven't.. So you're saying if we take away GUNS and GUN CRIME drops, but at the same take all other VIOLENT CRIMES rise dramatically, that's success?

So you're ok if people are being killed, raped, stolen from, and kidnapped, so long as no guns are involved. Check!

Sorry, more facts:

Chicago's homicide tally increased slightly in 2005 and 2006 to 450 and 467, respectively, though the overall crime rate in 2006 continued the downward trend that has taken place since the early 1990s, with 2.5% fewer violent crimes and 2.4% fewer property crimes compared to 2005.

en.wikipedia.org...

Apparently that is going well too.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
No, we haven't.. So you're saying if we take away GUNS and GUN CRIME drops, but at the same take all other VIOLENT CRIMES rise dramatically, that's success?

So you're ok if people are being killed, raped, stolen from, and kidnapped, so long as no guns are involved. Check!

Sorry, more facts:

Chicago's homicide tally increased slightly in 2005 and 2006 to 450 and 467, respectively, though the overall crime rate in 2006 continued the downward trend that has taken place since the early 1990s, with 2.5% fewer violent crimes and 2.4% fewer property crimes compared to 2005.

en.wikipedia.org...

Apparently that is going well too.

Again, the same thing is happening in states that are very-pro gun!

Jeez dude, you're blind to the point because you CHOOSE to be. If the same thing is happening in states that have guns in almost every home, how can you attribute the lower crime rates to "gun control?"

www.disastercenter.com...

What is that? Crime rates have been dropping for 20 years in the entire US, even in areas where people have 10 guns in their homes? IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL IN A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT CONTINUE TO EXPERIENCE HIGHER VIOLENT CRIME RATES THAN THE REST OF THE NATION!!!

Science, man. It's awesome.

Millions watched as an entire city was shut down to look for one guy. Every major news station was covering the pursuit of one guy. We all know the face and relatives of this one guy. And it's all because he is an alleged terrorist. But more American were murdered in the south and west sides of Chicago than there were U.S. servicemen killed in Afghanistan last year, and yet for some reason we don't view those neighborhoods as terrorized

What's responsible for the bloodshed? Gang violence, as usual. Police estimate that of the 532 murders in 2012 -- nearly 1.5 a day -- about 80 percent were gang related. And yet, despite that rather staggering statistic, the national outcry is muted at best -- nothing, to say the least, like the kind we saw last week in Boston. What is it about the word "gang" that brings out the apathy in us? Would we view Chicago differently if we called the perpetrators something else?

Their deaths wouldn't be considered "Chicago's problem" if authorities suspected terrorists were involved. But it's "gang-related," so...

MSM Source, yet so true.

reply to post by TruthSeekersRUS


Officers are more at risk hunting down 30 gang bangers as opposed to a handful of terrorist. :-/

So, Intrepid.. Let's examine your claim that gun restrictions = safety.



North Dakota has the absolute lowest rate of violent crime in the US. In North Dakota you do not need a permit to purchase a firearm. CCW permits are issued. You can open carry long guns with no permit, and you can open carry handguns with a CCW. In ND, approximately 50% of residents are gun owners.

Maine has the second lowest rate of violent crime in the US. In Maine you do not need a permit to purchase a firearms. CCW permits are issued. You can open carry long guns and pistols with no permit. You can open carry in a vehicle with a permit. In Maine, approximately 40% of residents are gun owners.

Nevada, surprisingly, has the third lowest rate of crime in the US. In Nevada you do not need a permit to purchase a firearm. NV issues CCW permits, although you have to qualify with your EDC and can only conceal a weapon you have qualified with. It is legal to open carry both pistols and long guns. In Nevada, approximately 34% of residents are gun owners.


Anyway, you see the trend? I'm not going to keep going, but if you care to actually research the issue and not just believe what you are told to believe, you'll see that this trend continues all the way until you get the the high crime areas, where gun laws are particularly prohibitive.


Source

As an afterthought, Illinois ranks as the 11th highest rate of gun crime in the US. In Illinois you need a permit to purchase a firearm. In Cook County and Chicago so called "assault weapons" are banned. Coincidentally they have the highest crime rates in the state. Some local governments have magazine capacity limits for both pistols and long guns, including Chicago (12 rounds), Oak Park (10 rounds), Aurora (15 rounds), and Cook County (10 rounds). (AGAIN THE HIGH CRIME RATE AREAS!! LOL)

IN ILLINOIS ONLY 20% OF RESIDENTS ARE GUN OWNERS!

Yet, with all this amazing and progressive gun law, Illinois is plagued by violent crime to a very high degree. While the homicide rate, and other violent crime rates drop here, there aren't dropping any faster than they are in the rest of the nation.

The moral of the story is that the GUN RESTRICTIONS are not responsible for the decrease in violent crime.


Source 2

reply to post by kimish


True. There are places in Chicago cops just won't go because the areas are controlled by so many "gangs".

The story tho is asking why we are not calling the gangs in Chicago terrorists when they do nothing but "terrorize".

reply to post by TruthSeekersRUS


I've wondered the same thing!!! It only makes sense, right?

"If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words"

I don't know who said it, but if that ain't true, then I dont know what is.

reply to post by intrepid

Chicago's homicide tally increased slightly in 2005 and 2006 to 450 and 467, respectively, though the overall crime rate in 2006 continued the downward trend that has taken place since the early 1990s, with 2.5% fewer violent crimes and 2.4% fewer property crimes compared to 2005.

Imo that "drop" can be attributed to technology/forensics,and more cops, but for one to say "gun control works".

Not so clear or law's like Clinton's 3 strikes, and your out

It appears the real terrorist threat is our own real people in our own backyard.

The best plan would be for the Russians and Chinese to supply armaments to one of the factions and declare it the legitimate government of Chicago.

Or maybe the Canadians should enforce a no-fly zone and send in a few drones?

"They have sown the wind.....Now they shall reap the whirlwind!"

United States cities by crime rate contains a sortable list of crimes by type and city. The data comes from the FBI.

To try arguing that gun laws do/don't affect crime certainly isn't supported either way by this data, at least the way I see it.

To each agenda it's own however...

reply to post by TXRabbit

There isn't a place that I know of where it is possible to buy heroin legally in the United States.

But I can still walk two blocks from where I am this minute and purchase some. (no permit, no waiting period, no ID checks!)

I'm going to use that as proof that laws are not an effective method of eradicating anything.

Yeowzers... With the way this thread has been rolling.... One can assertane~

1~ We are faaaaaaaar away from gun control legislation... As even in this thread it's a 50/50 crowd (think of how TPTB are feeling about this / whether for the good or bad)

2~ In regards to "Gangbangers/Thugs/Hoodlums/Rabelrouser's" They view laws as "Optional" and 9/10 would care less if gun legislation was passed. They would still find a way to obtain a gun, et cetera~

3~ Even with the current Gun Legislation / Rules and whatever have you. We still have gun violence.

Now can you get rid of guns? Per American Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments (Anyone who is hardcore into our Hertiage) It's a big fat "NO"

So my question is then "How would one address Gun Legislation knowing 1~3?"

Pass more laws and make it hard for someone who can legally and constitionally own a gun harder?

Mandate that everyone is lock'd and loaded? CCW? (Personally I favor CCW / For the Win) Or at least optional~
Through laws that restrict law abiding citizens to where than can and can't CCW? I'm for that more as I shouldn't have a need to CCW in a school or sporting event.... I'd just leave my gun in the car

I'm just curious, what am I missing and where does ATS feel, Truely feel is the "Right" and the "Wrong"

Please advise,

sulaw

reply to post by sulaw

See my post above!

The US government is clearly in conflict with the American people.....A more responsible nation (or other body) needs to step in and enforce order.

TBH.....I suspect this may actually be how things will play out in the end, America is a giant teetering on a precipice and a very large proportion of the world's population are very, very keen to give it that final nudge.