9 people shot dead this weekend

wvumtnbkr wrote: In reply to rcutclif: I am from PA and they still had me do all that stuff ( In Illinios) because I didn't have a FOID car (again, this was for a BB gun). These shootings we are talking about are in Illinois, right (Chicago)?

Yep, Chicago. The reason you had to do all that stuff is because you were in IL. If you had driven to Gary, IN, then I bet they would've seen PA and sold you whatever you wanted with minimum fuss.

The real problem is that Gary, IN is really still in Chicago.

I've more or less stopped caring about gun violence. The areas with the loose gun laws don't have the violence that inner cities do. I don't have to worry about being a victim of it except for the occasional movie theater shootings which don't happen very often. It's the se reason I didn't really care when they ended stop and frisk here. They stopped violating the rights of gang bangers to carry illegal guns and people that live in those areas and wanted it stopped suffer from an increase of violent crime but at the end of the day it has little effect on me. If we've learned anything in the last few weeks its that I shouldn't tell people how they should want to live just because I don't agree with it as long as it doesn't have any bearing on my life.

rcutclif wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Are there any gang members on the forum who would like to chime in and say what it would take to get you to use knives and/or hammers instead of range weapons? I think we can all agree that you guys killing each other is a good thing and no one wants that to end - but the collateral damage is really off-putting. Maybe if you had a standard or banner you could fly to let others know the whereabouts of a battle, so they could call the kids inside and hunker down...

1. I know this is a sarcastic post. 2. Unfortunately however I think in many cases its the 'kids' using the guns. 14-16 y.o. kids using guns on each other. By the time you are 22-26, you are either already dead, or had so many friends killed by guns you are trying to 'stay the hell out of it'. The way I understand the problem is that it really isn't large gangs fighting for dominance, but really small (8-10) groups of friends who happen upon guns, and use them against other cliques (often at the same high school) who have 'wronged' them somehow. Then there is often 3-4 rounds of 'revenge', leaving half the kids involved dead.

I'd be happy to turn this into an education problem as well. There are many reasons why the schools are failing, and this is one of them. And everything just exacerbates everything else

In reply to Wally:

If I'm reading your post correctly, you believe there has been a noticeable uptick in violent crime with the end of Stop & Frisk. Is there some statistical analysis that backs this up? If I've read your post incorrectly I'll step back from the question.

This shouldn't even be a berkeleying gun debate. This should be how to get people to value a human life debate.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Wally: If I'm reading your post correctly, you believe there has been a noticeable uptick in violent crime with the end of Stop & Frisk. Is there some statistical analysis that backs this up? If I've read your post incorrectly I'll step back from the question.

Whoa whoa whoa! Asking to bring statistical data into a ideological and emotional debate like this? How dare you!

BTW - I once heard a person call into the radio saying that violent video games were the problem. When the host retorted that studies have shown that violent video games have no noticeable impact on teen gun violence, the caller responded (no joke) "Studies, schmuddies. It JUST HAS to be those video games! How could it not be?" I remember laughing out loud.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Wally: If I'm reading your post correctly, you believe there has been a noticeable uptick in violent crime with the end of Stop & Frisk. Is there some statistical analysis that backs this up? If I've read your post incorrectly I'll step back from the question.

I think it's probably true. Oppression is proven to work... it's just that it's completely illegal in this country and generally speaking, somewhat undesirable when allowed to creep into everyone else's life.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

So do you have any statics to back this up? Your point seems similar to "because there was a bully in the class none of the other children acted up".

pres589 wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: So do you have any statics to back this up? Your point seems similar to "because there was a bully in the class none of the other children acted up".

No, ofcourse not. But, if I was king and I wanted to stop crime I'd just take a bunch of thugs and go search everyone and lay some deadly beatings on people until they were afraid to even think about crossing me. Why wouldn't I expect it to work for the NYPD?

its actually a significant improvement from last year - a 35% reduction in the number of folks shot. The killed to shot ratio is a titch worse this year - 16% vs 18% last year. With 9.5 million people in the area your odds are literally a million to one.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

.... what? So given a chance to be a leader, you'd just check your gut and not facts, and basically rule via terror? This seems like a stretch when I've written it down but then I read your post again and can't really see much of a delta between the two.

In reply to oldtin:

So you're seeing a reduction in violent crime after Stop & Frisk has been banned publicly from police practices?

pres589 wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: .... what? So given a chance to be a leader, you'd just check your gut and not facts, and basically rule via terror? This seems like a stretch when I've written it down but then I read your post again and can't really see much of a delta between the two.

Your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

In reply to z31maniac:

I really don't think he was being sarcastic. Maybe he can tell us.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: .... what? So given a chance to be a leader, you'd just check your gut and not facts, and basically rule via terror? This seems like a stretch when I've written it down but then I read your post again and can't really see much of a delta between the two.

Yes. You are correct. I would require large earth-moving equipment to bury the bodies but crime would be curtailed. Unfortunately, we don't have kings here. So, my crime prevention solutions are illegal despite having been proven effective for ruthless dictators the world over for centuries. I have complete faith that this is an easy problem to solve except for that pesky Bill of Rights document and the Constitution that compels it into law.

You can't just go around telling people what they can and cannot have in their pockets and check it out for yourself as you please. It's all very frustrating. No?

pres589 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: I really don't think he was being sarcastic. Maybe he can tell us.

You clearly don't read many of GPS's posts, do you?

(he's what you might call "an acquired taste" )

In reply to aircooled:

It's hard to use sarcasm effectively on a medium like this as there's no human voice involved, no body language, and often the writing isn't very verbose or expressive. I assume we can take each other at face value although apparently that's too easy...

Very true. GPS should probably use more emoticons in his posts. Of course, at this point, I think most everyone just assumes it

Back to GPS's idea (): The Oppressive Overlord approach is certainly valid. It of course is a bit like the Beat your Kids Into Submission approach though. Works great, but sometimes, when they grow up, they come back and kill you with an improvised garden implement.

In reply to rcutclif:

Ammunition being regulated? Oh the senselessness.

If it makes you feel any better, neither of them could have purchased a handgun from a store in Indiana, and unless something has changed, the only adjoining states(MI, KY, and OH) residents may purchase long guns here. Illinois was excluded from that last time I checked due to the paperwork/restrictions involved.

Otherwise, you could purchase from the internet, but it must be shipped to a FFL in your home state to have the background check done when you go to pick it up.

As far as the gang violence figures, did MS13 quit using Machetes yet?

pres589 wrote: In reply to Wally: If I'm reading your post correctly, you believe there has been a noticeable uptick in violent crime with the end of Stop & Frisk. Is there some statistical analysis that backs this up? If I've read your post incorrectly I'll step back from the question.

No statistics. Just an observation that a number of communities have been very vocal in saying they don't want the police. Since this doesn't affect me I shouldn't by projecting my middle class straight white male ideals on them.

So the original point was that there were something along the lines of 50 separate shootings this weekend. Quickly devolved into how easy it is to buy guns in some areas.

I'd like to know however: in how many of those shootings was the firearm used purchased at a retailer following the laws and rules as they are written vs how many were bought "on the street"?

With over 350 million firearms currently in circulation in our country trying to stuff the genie back into its bottle is a non starter so maybe addressing the real problems which lead people to end one another's lives for little to no reason would be a more useful way to spend our time.

Lack of resources seems like a good place to start. When someone has nothing to lose they have little thought of consequences. But give that person an education and a mortgage and I bet he'll think twice before poppin' a cap in someone who "looked at him disrespectfully".

I dunno...... last week my buddy gathered his 7 handguns together and we shot over 100 rounds of 9mm, and 160 rounds of 45cal.

We returned the next day and went through 150 or so 12-gauge shotgun shells. (shooting skeet)

This took place at a gun range in Suburban Chicagoland. While we were there, other members had a variety of firearms. "semi-auto "assault rifles", handguns, even an old powder rifle that made a huge bang!

So while IL does have restrictions on gun use.....it's not like guns and ammo aren't available.

I'm not getting into the gangs vs. guns debate---- but residents of IL do have access to firearms.

In reply to Wally:

I don't think anyone has said "we do not want the police" over Stop & Frisk. They want a police force that doesn't, you know, use racial profiling to violate 4th Amendment rights. There's a big difference.

In reply to pres589:

We didn't have a stop and frisk policy in Chicago (publicly known at least). its been cool and rainy most of this summer. Chicagoans tend to shoot each other less often when the weather is crappy.

On the big picture, well educated folks with solid economic resources tend to not kill each other. We should do that if we're not going to do the oppression thing. Either one is fairly resource-intensive.