Bloody Weekend - Chicago - 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead

[StukaJr]

Original
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704117.html

Yahoo video:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=7468720&src=news



Bloody Weekend: 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead
CHICAGO (CBS) ― A violent and deadly weekend continues in Chicago. At least 12 people have been shot, two of them killed, since Saturday morning. Two others were stabbed in a home invasion. This comes after at least 20 people were shot, four of them killed, from Friday night through early Saturday.

A 28-year-old man was shot and killed at an auto body repair shop on the Southwest Side Saturday morning. Raul Lemus was shot in the stomach at 2520 W. 59th St. at about 11:20 a.m.

Lemus, of 4630 S. Talman Av., died several hours later at Stroger Hospital, making him the sixth person killed in Chicago since Friday night. Police said the shooting appeared to be gang related.

Also Saturday morning, Michael Giles, 26, was shot and killed inside his home at 336 N. Avers Av. Harrison Area detectives are investigating.

In another case, a suspect toting an AK-47 has been charged with murder and three counts of attempted murder after allegedly killing a man and shooting at police. Bennie Teague, 39, was denied bond in the case Sunday afternoon.

It's amazing no one was hurt during the shootout between police and Teague, who was firing an assault rifle. Police say the gunman opened fire on them Friday night at 110th and South Union. They tracked him down after he allegedly shot and killed 34-year-old Marcus Hendricks inside a plumbing business a few blocks away.

The 34-year-old from Flossmoor died after being shot just blocks from a police-involved shooting on the Far South Side. He died at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn at 8 p.m., a Cook County Medical Examiner's office spokesman said.

"All I could say is he's a nice guy," said neighbor Amos Williams.

The recent gunfire has rattled nerves throughout the Roseland neighborhood.

"It's not that all the area, all the streets are bad," Williams said. "It's that you get bad elements coming through your street."

"My son is in 8th grade, about to go to high school. As a parent, I'm very concerned," said neighbor Charles Thomas.

Also, Friday night, two teens were gunned down in front of a church in the 7500 block of South Phillips.

Police say gunmen jumped out of a car and opened fire in front of the Free Salvation Methodist Baptist Church. One of the teens suffered a gunshot wound to the chest and back, the other was shot in the neck, police said.

Melvin Thomas, of 14922 Washington Ave. in Harvey was ****ounced dead at the Stein Institute at 1:20 a.m. Rhonell Savala, of 9750 S. Hoxie Ave. in Chicago, was ****ounced dead at 12:50 a.m. Saturday at the Stein Institute.

"I was in my house and my friend came and got me and he said two boys was laying outside on the stairs...dead," said neighbor Tamara Roberson.

Flowers and teddy bears now serve as a memorial to 18-year-olds, Thomas and Savala.

"I live just a block away on 77th, kids were still outside," Roberson said.

"To put the shooting in perspective, you have to consider this was a 17-hour window," said Chicago Police spokesperson Monique Bond about the number of shootings.

Chicago police are now stepping up patrols in areas that they call "hot zones." Police blame the warmer temperatures for the spike in violence.

"We know that we're approaching warmer weather, the summer season. We know that this is going to be a very busy season for the Chicago Police Department. There's no doubt about that," Bond said.

Chicago Police have also recently started using helicopter patrols to try to curb gang violence. Choppers will be flying over areas ****e to gang activity, especially on weekends when more shootings seem to occur.

Other shootings included, a 65-year-old man being shot dead outside his home on the Southeast Side during an attempted robbery.

Ricardo Sanchez of 8439 S. Exchange Ave. was ****ounced dead at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, according to the Medical Examiner's office.

Sunday morning, two people were critically injured when an intruder broke into their apartment in Ravenswood and stabbed them both. Police said a 26-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman were stabbed in a home invasion at 1932 W. Winona St. about 6 a.m. Sunday.

Both victims were in critical condition at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. The intruder was in custody Sunday morning, but no charges had been filed.

In most of the other shootings, the injuries were less serious, but the violence affected nearly every part of the city.

Six of the people shot and wounded Saturday night were injured in two separate incidents less than a block away from each other and less than an hour apart.

Three men were shot at about 10:50 p.m. near the intersection of Latrobe Avenue and Madison Street, police said. Two of the men were shot in their feet and one man was shot in the leg. All three men were taken to the hospital in "stable" condition.

About 40 minutes later, three more people were shot less than a block away at 5361 W. Madison St. Authorities said a 12-year-old and a 14-year-old were among the victims. One of those victims was in critical condition; the other two were in fair condition. Grand Central Area detectives are investigating.

Also Saturday night, a 19-year-old man was driving down the street in the South Side's Back-of-the-Yards neighborhood Saturday night when shots were fired at his vehicle and he was hit in the arm, authorities said. The man was in "stable" condition at Stroger Hospital Saturday night.

On the Far South Side, a 34-year-old man suffered a gunshot to his shoulder while standing in his yard Saturday night. The man was standing in his yard in the 10900 block of South Green Bay Avenue about 9 p.m. when someone began firing, hitting him in the left shoulder. Calumet Area detectives are investigating.

In the Southeast Side's South Chicago neighborhood, two men suffered minor gunshot wounds after hearing shots fired at about 8:15 p.m. The two men, aged 25 and 24, were driving south on the 8200 block of South Muskegon Avenue, when they heard shots fired and realized they had been hit.

Meantime, a 17-year-old male was in good condition early Sunday after he was shot on the 6800 block of South Parnell Avenue in an apparent drive-by. Wentworth Area detectives are investigating.

A 24-year-old man was also shot early Sunday on the 1900 block of Howard Street in the Rogers Park neighborhood. A gunman approached the victim on the street and began firing, police said. The victim was shot in the leg and was listed in "stable" condition. Belmont Area detectives are investigating.

Friday night, three teens were shot near 70th and Wood streets in the West Englewood neighborhood. At least one of the victims was in critical condition.

Also Friday night, a 32-year-old man was shot in the 6400 block of South Morgan Street in the Englewood neighborhood. And at 9:42 p.m., a person was shot in the knee in the 11200 block of South State Street in the Roseland neighborhood.

Shortly before midnight, two teenage boys were shot, again in the West Englewood neighborhood. The boys, one 16-year-old and one 15-year-old, were shot in their legs at 6330 S. Damen Ave around 11:45 p.m. Their injuries were not considered serious.

And about 1:30 a.m. Saturday, a robbery victim was shot on the 7900 block of South St. Lawrence Avenue. The robber demanded money from the victim, police said. The victim ran away, but not before the robber got off one shot.

In the 1000 block of West Sunnyside Avenue in the Uptown neighborhood, a man was shot in his upper thigh around 11:35 p.m. Friday. Police said the victim was not cooperating with the investigation, and there were several conflicting stories about the shooting.

On the Southwest Side, a man riding in a car in the 5100 block of South Christiana Avenue was wounded when someone fired shots inside around 10:45 p.m. Friday. The man, believed to be in his 30s, was shot in his left arm and taken in good condition to Holy Cross Hospital.

On the West Side, a man was shot multiple times and critically wounded in the wee hours of Saturday morning. The man was shot in the 700 block of North Drake Avenue just after 1:45 a.m., and taken in critical condition to Mount Sinai Hospital.

Also on the West Side, 21-year-old man was in good condition early Saturday after he was shot in the right leg on the 4400 block of West Adams Street. The man was standing there abut 2:35 a.m. when someone in a passing car fired shots at him, police said.

In broad daylight Friday evening, two teenage girls were shot in the thigh in separate incidents on the Southeast and Southwest sides.

In the first incident, a girl was shot and wounded in the arm in the 2700 block of West 66th Street. A Chicago Lawn District sergeant indicated that another person was also shot in the incident.

In the second incident, a 15-year-old girl was shot in the thigh in the 8700 block of South Euclid Avenue.

Just two blocks from the scene of the first shooting where a girl was wounded, a man was shot at 5:40 p.m., police said.

And around 6:30 p.m., a teenage boy was shot in the 6000 block of South Campbell Avenue. He was taken to the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital in serious condition, police said.

The final numbers were up to 36 acts of violence, with 9 dead...

So what the hell is going on? A gang war or scumbags are just taking their aggressions off for the price of gas?

Finally, I won't miss the opportunity to point out that the City with some of the heaviest ban/restrictions on Handguns and complete ban on ammunition can witness a wave of crime committed with firearms and ammunition. When will it sink in that banning guns or ammo make people safe?

[Bulletproof]

I blame videogames.

[BugHunt]

A sad scarey amount of violence.....



Talking to a m8 who lives in Chicago, and from my perspective its mad the amount of gunfire and whatnot he mentions he hears just as day to day "background".....

[The Dane]

Wow!!
Just WOW!!

[Euroamerican]

......the City with some of the heaviest ban/restrictions on Handguns and complete ban on ammunition can witness a wave of crime committed with firearms and ammunition. When will it sink in that banning guns or ammo make people safe?

I think you meant to say that banning guns or ammo "does not " make people safe.

But anyway: They, the anti nuts, would argue next that the three states in the Chicago metro area ( Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana) should all be made zero-tolerance "gun free" zones in order to make the Windy City safe from dem evil guns.

[joe mama]

I'd LOVE to know exactly what this "AK-47" really was, in detail. I sincerely doubt it's a true, ie select fire capable of full auto, AK-47.

[BugHunt]

Documentary called Gangland - with the chicago gangs.

It had footage of there new year eve celebrations - walking outside and firing AK's and submachineguns into the ether!

Apparently its got so bad that the police close of certain roads that time of year! Insane in the membrane if you ask me.....

[SOG]

Bloody hell, I was cringing as I continued to read.


Chicago Police have also recently started using helicopter patrols to try to curb gang violence. Choppers will be flying over areas ****e to gang activity, especially on weekends when more shootings seem to occur.


They do this in San Diego big time. Every night we have the police helo doing runs. One time I was laying on the living room floor talking on the phone late at night with just a small kitchen light on, the police spot lighted me right through the balcony from the helo then moved on. Methinks they were using their thermal dealy looking for someone.

[Rudolph]

Crazy stuff.

[StukaJr]

......the City with some of the heaviest ban/restrictions on Handguns and complete ban on ammunition can witness a wave of crime committed with firearms and ammunition. When will it sink in that banning guns or ammo make people safe?

I think you meant to say that banning guns or ammo "does not " make people safe.

But anyway: They, the anti nuts, would argue next that the three states in the Chicago metro area ( Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana) should all be made zero-tolerance "gun free" zones in order to make the Windy City safe from dem evil guns.

I was being sarcastic and I agree with the points you make.

[Hot Lips]

For the sake of arguement... I would think that bans could only work when they are implemented everywhere consistantly. Never be 100%, but should lower statistics, no? But, if you don't have to travel far to obtain one elsewhere, what's the point.

It's like designated smoking sections without barriers and air filtering. Smoke travels. So do people.

[wicked_hind]

Bloody hell, I was cringing as I continued to read.



They do this in San Diego big time. Every night we have the police helo doing runs. One time I was laying on the living room floor talking on the phone late at night with just a small kitchen light on, the police spot lighted me right through the balcony from the helo then moved on. Methinks they were using their thermal dealy looking for someone.

Yeah, the ghetto birds tend to hang out somewhat where I live, which is in the North Park area of S.D. We had a cop chasing a suspect once on rooftop, funny s**t.

[joe mama]

For the sake of arguement... I would think that bans could only work when they are implemented everywhere consistantly. Never be 100%, but should lower statistics, no? But, if you don't have to travel far to obtain one elsewhere, what's the point.

It's like designated smoking sections without barriers and air filtering. Smoke travels. So do people.

For those who think banning guns is the answer (not necessarily you hotlips, since you mentioned for sake of argument), consider this:
Drunk driving kills and injures thousands each year. No one needs to drink. Shouldn't we ban alcohol? Think of the lives it will save.

What's that, millions drink legally and responsibly? Well so what, we must stop the few that don't, and save lives. Crazy idea, isn't it? Much better to severely punish drunk drivers to try to deter some and get those who won't be deterred off the roads, right?

Now replace "drunk driving" with "criminal gun use" and "drink" with "own guns" and "alcohol" with "guns".

Banning guns does nothing about the guns already in criminal hands. It also does nothing about the people who'd make their now legal guns disappear, and then possibly sell them to criminals (especially if they skyrocket in value if they become tough for criminals to get because of the ban). The extreme vast majority of the effect a ban would have is to stop law abiding people from doing things they do legally and responsibly today, based on the hope that criminals might be impacted. Want to fight gun crime? Double, triple, quadruple (whatever) sentences for gun crimes. Deter a few, perhaps, and lock the others away til they're old. And leave the law abiding citizen alone.

[Lau]

For those who think banning guns is the answer (not necessarily you hotlips, since you mentioned for sake of argument), consider this:
Drunk driving kills and injures thousands each year. No one needs to drink. Shouldn't we ban alcohol? Think of the lives it will save.

What's that, millions drink legally and responsibly? Well so what, we must stop the few that don't, and save lives. Crazy idea, isn't it? Much better to severely punish drunk drivers to try to deter some and get those who won't be deterred off the roads, right?

Now replace "drunk driving" with "criminal gun use" and "drink" with "own guns" and "alcohol" with "guns".

Banning guns does nothing about the guns already in criminal hands. It also does nothing about the people who'd make their now legal guns disappear, and then possibly sell them to criminals (especially if they skyrocket in value if they become tough for criminals to get because of the ban). The extreme vast majority of the effect a ban would have is to stop law abiding people from doing things they do legally and responsibly today, based on the hope that criminals might be impacted. Want to fight gun crime? Double, triple, quadruple (whatever) sentences for gun crimes. Deter a few, perhaps, and lock the others away til they're old. And leave the law abiding citizen alone.

Comparing Gun crimes and drunk driving? :cantbeli:

Fact is, you will never see any european city with crazy numbers like that... 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead...

It's insane!!!

[Bulletproof]

Question, can you legally own an AK-47 in USA (or states)?

[Curtvile]

Comparing Gun crimes and drunk driving? :cantbeli:

Fact is, you will never see any european city with crazy numbers like that... 32 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 6 Dead...

It's insane!!!

Really?
Easy way would be to remind that Serbia, Albania et al are still part of europe.
I know, it´s different when we are talking about insurgecies or state of war.

But you really neglected the point.
There is no need to drink alcohol, period.
It is not a human right.
"but so many enjoy it and know what they are doing!!!" you say.
Exactly.
But many do not.
Therefore lets ban alcohol.

Banning guns is a lazy no-fuzz way of problemsolving, that actuaaly doesn´t solve a problem.
Problems lie elsewhere in society, in poverty, lack of education, inequality issues but those are real problems requiring real work and commitment.
Banning guns is easy.

[Lau]

Really?
Easy way would be to remind that Serbia, Albania et al are still part of europe.
I know, it´s different when we are talking about insurgecies or state of war.

Yes, those nations can safely be excluded from my list, not exactly comparable to the US. ;)




But you really neglected the point.
There is no need to drink alcohol, period.
It is not a human right.
"but so many enjoy it and know what they are doing!!!" you say.
Exactly.
But many do not.
Therefore lets ban alcohol.

No, Guns are guns, they are made for killing people, it's a weapon. You cannot compare guns and alcohol. Period!



Banning guns is a lazy no-fuzz way of problemsolving, that actuaaly doesn´t solve a problem.
Problems lie elsewhere in society, in poverty, lack of education, inequality issues but those are real problems requiring real work and commitment.
Banning guns is easy.

It's solves the problem with to many guns in being in the wrong hands.
Sure, some criminals will still be able to get their filthy hands on a gun, but not in this massive scale you see in the US.



Problems lie elsewhere in society, in poverty, lack of education, inequality issues but those are real problems requiring real work and commitment.
Banning guns is easy.

So what you are saying is, in the US, more people lack education, live in poverty and feel more unequal, compared to EU citizens?

[i_heart_menthols]

So what you are saying is, in the US, more people lack education, live in poverty and feel more unequal, compared to EU citizens?

Probably not "more" because the EU has a much larger population than the US, but as a percentage of the overall population, it's probably true.

Gun violence is a result of an ever-declining standard of living, drug prohibition that fuels criminal groups and conflicts who are responsible for the lion's share of murders in this country, the greater culture in general and a prison culture of segregation and bloodshed that has hugely influenced the street culture in major cities across the U.S. in particular, and the ease of access to weapons, making them the preferred tool of many criminals.

And suicides. A large slice of those gun violence death statistics are actually suicides ("The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6) with firearms used in 16,907 suicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) in the United States during 2004." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States).

Banning guns simply wouldn't work. There are too many in this country (a quarter of a billion legally-held firearms, so imagine tens of millions more "illegal" firearms), and our experience with banning drugs alone should demonstrate how ineffective European-style gun control would be in this country. Just ask yourself this: How hard is it to get cocaine from Latin America and heroin from Afghan poppies in London? And drug-sniffing dogs don't work against rifles.

We shouldn't allow sensationalist media coverage of this problem to convince us to erode our own rights and deny honest people the ability to defend themselves.

I think it's drug prohibition more than anything else, to be honest. That fuels it all. Just as the criminalization of alcohol led to the tommy gun massacres in Chicago and New York and the rise of the likes of Al Capone, drug prohibition allows these violent groups to survive on the fringes of society, providing an income to everyone from gang bangers in L.A., to FARC terrorists in Colombia, to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Choke out their life support system, and watch the warfare that has ruined our inner cities decrease drastically. We had to go back and create a Constitutional amendment to end prohibtion against alcohol, we should do the same with drugs.

Sorry to go off on a rant. And before anyone says it, I am not a drug user. Never have been and never will be. I'm not defending drug use, just saying that its economic side is responsible for a great deal of our misery, and that we'd be better off treating drug abuse as a medical problem, and severing off the financial support that allows these people to trash our cities.

[Lau]

Probably not "more" because the EU has a much larger population than the US, but as a percentage of the overall population, it's probably true.

Gun violence is a result of an ever-declining standard of living, drug prohibition that fuels criminal groups and conflicts who are responsible for the lion's share of murders in this country, a prison culture of segregation and bloodshed that has hugely influenced the street culture in major cities across the U.S., and the ease of access to weapons, making them the preferred tool of many criminals.

And suicides. A large slice of those gun violence death statistics are actually suicides ("The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6) with firearms used in 16,907 suicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) in the United States during 2004." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States).

Banning guns simply wouldn't work. There are too many in this country (a quarter of a billion legally-held firearms, so imagine tens of millions more "illegal" firearms), and our experience with banning drugs alone should demonstrate how ineffective European-style gun control would be in this country. Just ask yourself this: How hard is it to get cocaine from Latin America and heroin from Afghan poppies in London? And drug-sniffing dogs don't work against rifles.

We shouldn't allow sensationalist media coverage of this problem to convince us to erode our own rights and deny honest people the ability to defend themselves.

I think it's drug prohibition more than anything else, to be honest. That fuels it all. Just as the criminalization of alcohol led to the tommy gun massacres in Chicago and New York and the rise of the likes of Al Capone, drug prohibition allows these violent groups to survive on the fringes of society, providing an income to everyone from gang bangers in L.A., to FARC terrorists in Colombia, to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Choke out their life support system, and watch the warfare that has ruined our inner cities decrease drastically. We had to go back and create a Constitutional amendment to end prohibtion against alcohol, we should do the same with drugs.

Sorry to go off on a rant. And before anyone says it, I am not a drug user. Never have been and never will be. I'm not defending drug use, just saying that its economic side is responsible for a great deal of our misery, and that we'd be better off treating drug abuse as a medical problem, and severing off the financial support that allows these people to trash our cities.

What you are saying is interesting.. Legalize drugs, and society could actually benefit from it.. You Could actually be right.. ;) I believe they are already testing your idea in Switzerland and Holland.

[James]

For the sake of arguement... I would think that bans could only work when they are implemented everywhere consistantly. Never be 100%, but should lower statistics, no? But, if you don't have to travel far to obtain one elsewhere, what's the point.

The reason it won't work is because people who choose to commit crimes with firearms don't care if it's legal for them to possess one. The subject of this thread is a case in point - I'd bet that not a single one of the firearms used to commit any of these crimes was acquired legally.

[pascalywood]

No, Guns are guns, they are made for killing people, it's a weapon.


I disagree. Military guns are made to kill people. Hunting rifles and shotguns are not made to kill people but animals. They can kill humans but thats not what they are designed for, same as knives, lead pipes, candelars, wrenches or ropes.

[Will938]

The reason it won't work is because people who choose to commit crimes with firearms don't care if it's legal for them to possess one. The subject of this thread is a case in point - I'd bet that not a single one of the firearms used to commit any of these crimes was acquired legally.

To add onto this, people have a wildly irrational approach to this problem. Take lau for instance, he smugly claims that "you'd never see this in a European city". Neglecting to mention that you'd instead see a bunch of stabbings, and beatings with blunt instruments.

To them 32 shootings and 2 gun murders is worse than 32 stabbings and 2 murders done with knives. Go figure that one out. People need to understand that murder is the problem, not gun murder. You can't remove the object and fix the problem, you have to remove the reason people want to commit crime.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Chicago used to be a murder capital of the US until 2004 or 2005.

So, what's new?

[SoSo]

Gun violence is a result of an ever-declining standard of living, drug prohibition that fuels criminal groups and conflicts who are responsible for the lion's share of murders in this country, the greater culture in general and a prison culture of segregation and bloodshed that has hugely influenced the street culture in major cities across the U.S. in particular, and the ease of access to weapons, making them the preferred tool of many criminals.

And suicides. A large slice of those gun violence death statistics are actually suicides ("The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6) with firearms used in 16,907 suicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) in the United States during 2004." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States).

Banning guns simply wouldn't work. There are too many in this country (a quarter of a billion legally-held firearms, so imagine tens of millions more "illegal" firearms), and our experience with banning drugs alone should demonstrate how ineffective European-style gun control would be in this country. Just ask yourself this: How hard is it to get cocaine from Latin America and heroin from Afghan poppies in London? And drug-sniffing dogs don't work against rifles.

We shouldn't allow sensationalist media coverage of this problem to convince us to erode our own rights and deny honest people the ability to defend themselves.

I think it's drug prohibition more than anything else, to be honest. That fuels it all. Just as the criminalization of alcohol led to the tommy gun massacres in Chicago and New York and the rise of the likes of Al Capone, drug prohibition allows these violent groups to survive on the fringes of society, providing an income to everyone from gang bangers in L.A., to FARC terrorists in Colombia, to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Choke out their life support system, and watch the warfare that has ruined our inner cities decrease drastically. We had to go back and create a Constitutional amendment to end prohibtion against alcohol, we should do the same with drugs.

Sorry to go off on a rant. And before anyone says it, I am not a drug user. Never have been and never will be. I'm not defending drug use, just saying that its economic side is responsible for a great deal of our misery, and that we'd be better off treating drug abuse as a medical problem, and severing off the financial support that allows these people to trash our cities.

Lau, you are so right! Have you ever visited the United States? Because you really seem to have grasped our country's central problem. Our prisons are overflowing with nonviolent inmates serving long sentences for drug possession (in most cases not Ecstacy, methamphetamines, heroin or PCP, but - yes, you guessed it, marijuana). Not only is the War on Drugs itself counterproductive, wastful, and discriminatory in its prosecution of minorities, but it is also being waged, for the most part, against marijuana, despite the increasing appeals by governors, mayors, and sherriffs' offices for the Feds to deprioritize the campaign against pot, and instead focus efforts against more dangerous drugs like meth.

[Curtvile]

No, Guns are guns, they are made for killing people, it's a weapon. You cannot compare guns and alcohol. Period!




You are absolutely right.

Alcohol has caused more deaths, maimings and suffering then guns ever have.

[joe mama]

No, Guns are guns, they are made for killing people, it's a weapon. You cannot compare guns and alcohol. Period!

Thank you for deciding for us what we can and cannot do. I didn't realize you were the head of the Bureau of Acceptable Comparisons.

I compared criminal activity of one kind with criminal activity of another kind, where in both cases there is MASSIVE non-criminal activity involving the same object/item/material. It would be considered outrageous by most reasonable people to suggest banning alcohol as a method of fighting drunk driving, with much screeching about the rights of those who obey the law and drink responsibly. Yet there are many who'd turn around and say we should ban guns as a method of fighting gun crime, and say to those who obey the law, "F U! guns are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!"

[PhiltheFish]

http://blog.joins.com/usr/a/g/agony00/1/paul_kersey_3223.jpg

[joe mama]

It's solves the problem with to many guns in being in the wrong hands.
Sure, some criminals will still be able to get their filthy hands on a gun, but not in this massive scale you see in the US.


Sure it (banning guns) does. Just like drugs like crack and heroin don't get in the wrong hands, despite being banned in every state and at the federal level.

Said it before, I'll say it again: want to fight gun crime in a serious intelligent way that doesn't end up punishing the innocent/law abiding? Double or triple or quadruple sentences for gun crimes. And/or add a 10 or 20 year bonus onto criminal sentences when a gun is used in a crime. And enforce the hell out of the laws we already have that actually are aimed at the criminals. And leave the responsible, law abiding gun owner, like me, the fcuk alone, until I do something illegal. What's that, since i have guns, I MIGHT do something illegal, so my guns should be taken away? Yeah, well, I have a truck too. Since it's a possibility that I might drive it down a crowded sidewalk sometime, maybe you should take that away too.
By the way, I'm also generally in favor of legalizing most drugs, which will cut down on the cause of a huge amount of crime to begin with, therefore probably helping to lower gun crime. Stop filling the prisons with pot heads and junkies and have space for the violent animals. If you're stupid enough to destroy your life with heroin (whatever), go right ahead and waste yourself, I could care less.

[Macs.]

To add onto this, people have a wildly irrational approach to this problem. Take lau for instance, he smugly claims that "you'd never see this in a European city". Neglecting to mention that you'd instead see a bunch of stabbings, and beatings with blunt instruments.

To them 32 shootings and 2 gun murders is worse than 32 stabbings and 2 murders done with knives. Go figure that one out. People need to understand that murder is the problem, not gun murder. You can't remove the object and fix the problem, you have to remove the reason people want to commit crime.

Sorry, but what you say is Bull****.

Show me a city within the EU with such a level of violence. These statistics of Chicago only mention crimes involving Firearms, not even knives, that would add up to the list.

Los Angeles alone had 222 Murders until now this year, with 175 of them done with a firearm. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/homicidemap/ )

Just as a comparison, England & Wales had 59 gun murders in total in 06/07.(Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf ) Germany had 194 murders with firearms '06. (But this includes suicide with firearms)

Something is wrong, and alot of guns (No matter if they are legal or illegal) are not really helping this problem. But obviously, if I had that kind of violence in my neighbourhood I would want a gun, too.


But what is really intersting me, how do these firearms end up illegal in the first place ? Are they smuggled into the US, or is it that those illegal firearms were legal firearms before ?

[mudbunny]

Philly is just as bad; I don't have the stats in front of me but last summer was record-breaking year for homicide and the truth is that neither Philly P.D or the Feds know what to do about it, well I should say they don't have any ideas that are constitutional. It's just an absolute f-ing mess and it's only gonna get worse until something really heinous happens which gives P.D and the Feds reason to just go in and go block to block serving warrants on every mother-f-er that peeps their head out of their curtains. Truth is if you banned handguns, these animals would still kill each other with sticks, stones,
tire-irons etc.

[The Balkan]

Really?
Easy way would be to remind that Serbia, Albania et al are still part of europe.
I know, it´s different when we are talking about insurgecies or state of war.



Not only that but Chicago has a big Serb population! lmao Albanian too I think.

But it's not even cuz of war related stuff, just the crime by itself is huge. In my home town in Bosnia car bombs go off all the time, robberies, extortion, etc. Someone actualy stole the fresh corpses of some kids from the morgue and extorted the parents...pay us and we'll let you bury them.

The young people especialy, they just lit some old woman on fire on a bus in Sarajevo for no reason lmao

DIfference is nobody gives a **** about half the stuff happening in these countries like they do in the US...half of it isn't reported ad investigated...it's just pretty much an accepted fact the criminals run sh*t

[Will938]

Sorry, but what you say is Bull****.

Show me a city within the EU with such a level of violence. These statistics of Chicago only mention crimes involving Firearms, not even knives, that would add up to the list.

Los Angeles alone had 222 Murders until now this year, with 175 of them done with a firearm. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/homicidemap/ )

Just as a comparison, England & Wales had 59 gun murders in total in 06/07.(Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf ) Germany had 194 murders with firearms '06. (But this includes suicide with firearms)

Something is wrong, and alot of guns (No matter if they are legal or illegal) are not really helping this problem. But obviously, if I had that kind of violence in my neighbourhood I would want a gun, too.


But what is really intersting me, how do these firearms end up illegal in the first place ? Are they smuggled into the US, or is it that those illegal firearms were legal firearms before ?


Read what I wrote again, then think about what you're saying. I'm sorry, but you missed the point completely. I could name dozens of reasons as to why there are high murder rates in places like LA, the availability of guns isn't one of them. For whatever reason Americans are just more inclined to take someone's life than in other countries. Kind of funny when you compare other violent crime between the US and places like UK or Australia, because it seems that criminals in those countries are quicker to rob, rape, or assault. You'd figure if we have less of a problem killing, then we'd be ahead in those too.

I'm saying that the violent crime rate is independent from the availability of certain lifeless objects. You're not going to convince anyone that the presence of a firearm makes people want to kill. That idea is already there, and if they want to do it they will. This has been shown throughout our history and continues its tradition today. Look at stats from the Aussie gov't, gun murders are down post-ban, but murders with knives and blunt objects are up. Overall murder is pretty much the same, why? Because they merely changed the prefered instrument of the criminal. We can see this in the US as well, culture obviously has much more to do with the problem than firearms, as the crime rates in states that have extremely strict gun control have shown us.

Guns certainly are not causing the problem, culture/society is. When you say that guns aren't helping the problem it becomes a moral question, who are we to deny people living in dangerous places the best means to protect themselves? You yourself said that you'd want a personal means of protection, we can certainly show that firearms are used for far more good than bad, so why put the 99.9% of lawful citizens in greater danger because we want to satisfy some irrational fear we have about an object?

In the US, most unlawful firearms start out being lawfully owned, usually stolen.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Sorry, but what you say is Bull****.

Show me a city within the EU with such a level of violence. These statistics of Chicago only mention crimes involving Firearms, not even knives, that would add up to the list.

Los Angeles alone had 222 Murders until now this year, with 175 of them done with a firearm. (Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/homicidemap/ )

Just as a comparison, England & Wales had 59 gun murders in total in 06/07.(Source: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf ) Germany had 194 murders with firearms '06. (But this includes suicide with firearms)

Something is wrong, and alot of guns (No matter if they are legal or illegal) are not really helping this problem. But obviously, if I had that kind of violence in my neighbourhood I would want a gun, too.


STFU!

Do you live here?

Most of those murders, shootings etc. happen in black neighborhoods and they are usually black on black (majority of them are drug and gang related). City of Chicago has the craziest gun laws in the state and state is maybe the craziest anti-gun state in the nation.


But what is really intersting me, how do these firearms end up illegal in the first place ? Are they smuggled into the US, or is it that those illegal firearms were legal firearms before ?

A pretty stupid question. Wouldn't it be f-ing obvious if they are illegal that they weren't obtained legally??? How the sellers get them is irelevant, but they are quite easy to get (ILLEGALLY).

[Macs.]

Read what I wrote again, then think about what you're saying. I'm sorry, but you missed the point completely. I could name dozens of reasons as to why there are high murder rates in places like LA, the availability of guns isn't one of them. For whatever reason Americans are just more inclined to take someone's life than in other countries.

Obviously one of the reasons is the gang culture which got developed in the poor parts of society, isn' it ?

But that really doesn't matter. The thing that counts is that these people can somehow (Again: No matter if legally or illegaly) get ahold of firearms.



Guns certainly are not causing the problem, culture/society is. When you say that guns aren't helping the problem it becomes a moral question, who are we to deny people living in dangerous places the best means to protect themselves? You yourself said that you'd want a personal means of protection, we can certainly show that firearms are used for far more good than bad, so why put the 99.9% of lawful citizens in greater danger because we want to satisfy some irrational fear we have about an object?

In the US, most unlawful firearms start out being lawfully owned, usually stolen.

Will, I am no advocat of a complety gun-free society, but of one that is hardly regulated.

If most unlawful firearms start out being lawfully owned, there obviously is a loophole that needs to be fixed.



STFU!

Do you live here?

Most of those murders, shootings etc. happen in black neighborhoods and they are usually black on black (majority of them are drug and gang related).

And... ?

Does that make it okay ? A part of black culture ? And what about bystanders ?

And atleast for L.A. most "victims" are Latino.


A pretty stupid question. Wouldn't it be f-ing obvious if they are illegal that they weren't obtained legally??? How the sellers get them is irelevant, but they are quite easy to get (ILLEGALLY).

Maybe you should think a bit before calling names.

Obviously a gun can be bought legally and then get stolen or sold illegally to someone who doesn't have the right to buy/own a firearm. Just a question of how good the goverment is tracking guns/controlling gun trade.

How a seller gets them is relevant. People who sell their guns without checking the buyer, or don't secure them good enough shouldn't own a firearm in the first place.

[Lt. James Anderson]

And... ?

Does that make it okay ? A part of black culture ? And what about bystanders ?

And atleast for L.A. most "victims" are Latino.

What exactly is your question?


Maybe you should think a bit before calling names.

Obviously a gun can be bought legally and then get stolen or sold illegally to someone who doesn't have the right to buy/own a firearm. Just a question of how good the goverment is tracking guns/controlling gun trade.

How a seller gets them is not irrelevant.

I didn't call you names. I only said that your question was stupid.

I don't know where they get them, but they can be bought illegally just as easily as legally (some even easier). Majority of them are probably smuggled from Mexico. Government tracking/controling gun trade (or ownership) is BS ... since they are only interested in controling law-abiding citizens ... If you want to reduce gun related crimes, tougher punishment (including capital punishment) is the way to go (it's been proven that nothing else works ... that is if you're interested in reducing crime and not something else).

[mudbunny]

As for acquiring firearms, you'd be surprised the kind of neighborhoods that have gunshops right around the corner.

[Fifty Gut]

http://blog.joins.com/usr/a/g/agony00/1/paul_kersey_3223.jpg

lol, problem solved

[Lt. James Anderson]

As for acquiring firearms, you'd be surprised the kind of neighborhoods that have gunshops right around the corner.

They don't have them in Chicago (as far as I know).

[mudbunny]

They don't have them in Chicago (as far as I know).

I'm not all familiar with Chicago, but it sounds pretty liberal which, in this case, is a good thing.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I'm not all familiar with Chicago, but it sounds pretty liberal which, in this case, is a good thing.

If you mean high taxes, corruption, crooked cops and politicians then you're right (which is not good in any case).

[joe mama]

To Macs: what do you think of what I mentioned, and others have referenced: instead of bans or more regulations on things that are already regulated, since only the law abiding would obey bans and the regulations, how about simply severely increasing the penalties for gun crime?

Today, I own several guns (some of which are deliciously of the evil kind!) legally. Joe Criminal owns several too. If bans were put in place, I either obey the law and give up my guns, or I become a criminal. Joe is already a criminal, and doesn't give a d@mn about the laws today, so what does he care about the new ban? If regulations are toughened, I have a harder time legally buying something I choose to own (put aside whether I have a right to own a gun or not, simply look at this as a law abiding citizen being able to choose to own something which can be dangerous - could be a gun, could be a chainsaw). Joe Criminal doesn't go to the gun store to buy his gun, he steals it or buys it illegally. Once again, he doesn't give a d@mn about the law and the tighter regulations. Sure, a ban or tighter regulations MIGHT eventually make it harder for him to get a gun. But they MIGHT do this while they're CERTAIN to restrict me. Shouldn't laws target the criminals instead of the law abiding? If we make it so that using a gun in a crime automatically adds 10 years (or whatever) to the sentence, this has no effect on the law abiding citizen, while directly targetting the armed criminal. If you're not simply an anti gun person (you've said you're not anti gun, just favor strong gun control, right? i'll put aside the usual name calling which would say that makes you an anti (for now! ;)), doesn't something like this that targets the criminals directly make much more sense?

If people drive too fast, should we make it harder for those who don't drive too fast to drive? Or should we ratchet up the punishment for those who are the actual problem?

As long as the ridiculously huge majority of guns are owned and used legally and responsibly, and the ridiculously huge majority of people who own guns are law abiding citizens, the only kind of gun control I might support is the kind that focuses on the criminal.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Some 60 % of Americans are obese. Maybe we outlaw spoons to adress obesity too?

[mudbunny]

If you mean high taxes, corruption, crooked cops and politicians then you're right (which is not good in any case).

Well, you get that in every big city regardless of political affiliation.
City Hall in Philly is an aboslute joke with it's corruption problems.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Well, you get that in every big city regardless of political affiliation.
City Hall in Philly is an aboslute joke with it's corruption problems.

True. But I still think Chicago is at the top.

[StukaJr]

I think a lot of posters whom are on the ban-wagon (whoooo! I made a pun!) have missed the point that guns are indeed banned in Chicago as is the ammunition... The only way to further outlaw guns in City of Chicago is to give people guns and then promptly arrest them...

This is not the problem to be fixed by passing more laws - other options are still viable though...

I luv guns

[joe mama]

Some 60 % of Americans are obese. Maybe we outlaw spoons to adress obesity too?

If guns kill people, then spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat!
:)

[Will938]

Obviously one of the reasons is the gang culture which got developed in the poor parts of society, isn' it ?

But that really doesn't matter. The thing that counts is that these people can somehow (Again: No matter if legally or illegaly) get ahold of firearms.

Will, I am no advocat of a complety gun-free society, but of one that is hardly regulated.

If most unlawful firearms start out being lawfully owned, there obviously is a loophole that needs to be fixed.


Exactly, gang war is a huge part, in fact that counts for many murders in those areas, which I don't have any problem with. It accounts for 15-20% of murders there IIRC.

lol no man, the thing that matters is that they're murdering people. Why would the means with which they commit their crime possibly be the issue? Taking guns won't stop them, so legal or illegal why is it such a big issue? One of the best things we could do to curb murders is to legalize drugs. Sounds pretty crazy, until you realize that it removes many of the reasons people are driven to commit violent crimes. Though increased addiction could create more crime...anyhow, its ideas like that which will help curb murders.

Doesn't seem like a problem to me. Criminals steal stuff, so what if they steal a gun. They've already committed several crimes by doing so and are committing several more by holding the firearm. They'll commit a few more if they use it in a crime. The only way to stop them is by enforcing the laws we already have on the books instead of tearing into lawful gun owners some more. In the mean time we can only hope that lawful gun owners continue to supply the one thing criminals fear, an armed victim.

[BarnabyJones]

If you mean high taxes, corruption, crooked cops and politicians then you're right (which is not good in any case).

I have lived in a few different cities, I now live in Chicago. I think the only difference here is that Chicago actually has a solid, world renowned base of investigative journalism that isn't afraid to challenge whomever is crooked. From city officials, to organized crime.

Suggesting that Chicago has more crooked cops, is a claim that is impossible to back up.

Taxes are high here, some of the highest in the country. But you have to take into account, that is for Cook county, which encompasses Chicago and what is termed, Chicagoland. Home to 9-12 million people. From some of the poorest of the poor, to some of the richest of the rich.



As far as Illinois and its gun laws, Ive never had a problem with them. I own a compact .45 and a 12 gauge, for protection at home, thats all I need. I dont see the need, nor do I want a semi auto rifle, or an automatic for that matter. So in that sense, Illinois' gun laws are fine with me.

In recent years we have learned that in Chicago, street gangs are getting their guns through a number of ways. There was a large group busted in Georgia I believe it was, a group of gun shop owners, who were selling directly to the gangs. Other shop owners have sold to organized crime, who then sell to the gangs. Some gangs have even gone as far as paying white males to go to out of state gun shows and purchase guns.


The majority of these people who were shot, were simply caught up in gang violence. Whether gun laws were relaxed enough to allow for concealed carry, or remained the same, its unlikely carrying a pistol would have changed the outcome in any of these situations.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I have lived in a few different cities, I now live in Chicago. I think the only difference here is that Chicago actually has a solid, world renowned base of investigative journalism that isn't afraid to challenge whomever is crooked. From city officials, to organized crime.

Suggesting that Chicago has more crooked cops, is a claim that is impossible to back up.

I have also lived in a few other major cities (including New York), but I grew up in Chicago so I would know. ;)


Taxes are high here, some of the highest in the country. But you have to take into account, that is for Cook county, which encompasses Chicago and what is termed, Chicagoland. Home to 9-12 million people. From some of the poorest of the poor, to some of the richest of the rich.

Actually it's the other way around. The city of Chicago is trying to take over the whole county (there's never enough money to steal). The mayor's son made millions as 20 yo (does that tell you something?).

[EvilPotato700]

Bloody hell, I was cringing as I continued to read.



They do this in San Diego big time. Every night we have the police helo doing runs. One time I was laying on the living room floor talking on the phone late at night with just a small kitchen light on, the police spot lighted me right through the balcony from the helo then moved on. Methinks they were using their thermal dealy looking for someone.

San Diego? Hell, i've been there, on my way to visit my aunt in Oceanside, Camp Pendleton ^_^