Skip to main content

View Diary: What you may not know about gun violence in Chicago (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is that you are also arguing against (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdbyrne

    yourself on guns.

    I expect federal regulations to reduce the number of guns somewhat and to save some lives.  They might even make a noticable dent in the number of armed robberies by putting the cost of entry to illegal gun ownership out of the range of many low-level thugs, but...

    Just as locals go to the suburbs and the gun shows and the private sales or just steal their guns, and just as cocaine and other drugs flood across the border to get distributed throughout the country, bad people will continue to get guns.

    It's what they do.

    The long-term answer is not only the right answer, it's the only one that can really work in a non-gulag nation.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  bite your tongue - non-gulag nation indeed. (8+ / 0-)

      It is taken conservatives 40 years of getting "tough on crime" to make their for-profit prison industry profitable.   Now you want to mess it up with freedom and human investment?

      What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

      by dkmich on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:00:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you mean that guns find their way, no matter... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, FogCityJohn, BYw

      ... what to Bad People - and that's how GL argues "against herself" - I disagree.

      Yes, criminals will get and use guns. We should make it harder for them, much harder. The Second Amendment is not an absolute freedom, any more than the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nothing in the Second Amendment or the two major cases applying it forbids reasonable regulations.

      1. Banning the manufacture, sale or other transfer of "assault rifles" and hi-cap magazines. Those who have them now can keep them; we're not "coming for those guns." But selling or trading them should be illegal.

      2. All sales and other transfers of all guns should be subject to a background check. This means, going forward at least, that guns and owners should be licensed, just like cars and drivers. (These functions can be centralized and computerized; we don't need to turn everyone into his own gun dealer.)

      3. Enhance reporting and analysis of gun-related crimes, accidents, incidents, etc.

      Of course, it will be argued that criminals will evade such laws. That argument proves too much. It suggests the only way not to have criminals is not to have laws.

      The NRA's answer is to have more guns, so Good Guys ostensibly outnumber and outgun Bad Guys. We don't live in a vigilante society. The NRA and its handmaidens must not be allowed to make us one.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:11:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Banning assault weapons and high cap magazines, (0+ / 0-)

        laudable though it may be, will do nothing about the situations she described.  Those are not carried out with assault weapons, just everyday hand guns.

        All of those other measures are fine, and, to some extent, will make it harder even for criminals to get guns, but...

        I find it a little odd to hear arguments like yours in the very same space that trumpets the failure of Prohibition and the war on drugs.  Now you believe we can make a prohibition work?

        Sounds contradictory to me.

        Criminals will do what they do now -- break the law.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:46:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prohibition created criminals. Gun criminals ... (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac, cocinero, annieli, a2nite, BYw, murrayewv

          ... are already here.

          Having more guns ostensibly to use against them - the policy the NRA urges - is putting fuel on the fire, not crime prevention.

          As for drugs, I think that is a war we cannot win. We're putting far too many law enforcement and court-system resources behind things that don't work because we visualize drug use as bad. Yes, it is. Interdicting supply lines is probably the most effective strategy to combat drug proliferation, but will not stop drug usage.

          As for parallels between drugs and guns, stanching the supply of "illegal" guns is essential. Interfering with the ready availability of guns that are not banned - through licensing guns and owners and background checks, for example - is also promising. Will it stop criminals from getting their hands on guns of all kinds? Not totally ... but it will help.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:03:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  To not lose the original point -- "will help" is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TRPChicago, cocinero

            not a bad thing, but no excuse to ignore the underlying societal problems that lead to people wanting and using guns to do bad things.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:07:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I worry, Dino, that you and I are in agreement... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dinotrac

              ... more and more often.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:33:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If it makes you feel better, I'm sure that there's (0+ / 0-)

                plenty that we disagree about -- especially in the area of how get where we want to be, but...

                I'm a child of the 60s.  John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were among my heroes (along with the astronauts).  I demonstrated in anti-war protests (and ran from police and managed to get one hellacious dose of both pepper and tear gas on one occasion), marched picket lines in support of the UFW (managed to get threatened by Chuckie O'Brien), and worked in a food cooperative.

                I considered myself a Socialist then and a consider myself a conservative now, but my ideals haven't changed -- just my views on how best to achieve them.

                No good conservative should forget the stirring ideals trumpeted in the Declaration of Indepenece, least of all the inalienable right we all hoave to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

                There were many different hands in the crew that made this country and many compromises made, but, at the end of the day, the result was forged on the anvil of hope, not crushed in a crucible of mean spirit.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:28:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  One more potential agreement: Can it really be (0+ / 0-)

                a Super Bowl with nary a bear in sight?

                Maybe we give the 49ers a point for ex-Bear Jim Harbaugh and ditto times two to the Ravens for Brendon Ayanbadejo and Corey Graham.

                Nah.
                Not the same.
                Sigh.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:33:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Da Bears deserve anonymity this year. (0+ / 0-)

                  ... With Urlacher out the last few games, the most placid coach (Lovie bless-his-heart Smith) competitive sports has ever had including Little Leagues I have known, and a quarterback who usually meant well ...  

                  We're Michigan fans, so Jim H. gets a little nod. But we're also Patriots fans, so we're rooting for the Ravens.

                  As for vintages, we were raising kids in the 60's, trying throughout the 70's to keep them away from People Like You. My wife and I were moderate Republicans-to-leaning Democrats back then, and we're now hopeless liberals a little apprehensive about some of the ultra Progressives.

                  Ready to fight yet? If not, I could call you an austerity-crat. That ought to do it.

                  2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:11:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Almost! (0+ / 0-)

                    Except that I'm a believer in prosperity, not austerity.  I am especially not in favor of austerity for all us not-rich folk and gravy for the people who pulled the strings on our current economic mess.

                    I don't have much problem with holding the line on government spending -- but only if you've got some way to put serious dollars in the pockets of the real job-creators, not padding accounts in the Grand Caymans.

                    If it's got to be government spending, I'm completely comfortable of looking over the spending like a Church lady holding sway over a bake sale: Make sure it counts.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:42:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  People dont do home invasions where i live (0+ / 0-)

            They dont break into peoples houses.

            You know why? Because theyre pretty much SURE theres a shotgun in that house at the minimum.

            Your "solution" is.. to disarm the people who's average police response time is 30 minutes.. with special exceptions for the people whos average police response time is 5 minutes. Think about that.

            A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

            by cdreid on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:17:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  they DO home invasions in WV.... (0+ / 0-)

              Where we have plenty of guns.  And drugs- plenty of drugs.  And most home invasions are for the cash in your home, not to murder you.  

              Just as the sniper can be murdered at the gun range, a desperate person can readily outgun the armed, prepared person- there are very few stories where the home invasions are thwarted directly.  For every story where the brave mom fights off the home invaders,  there is one where the husband murders the wife and blames the "home invaders."  

              Home invasions fit the home defense model and justify selling automatic weapons to suburban folks.  Home alarm systems and barking dogs are pretty effective deterrents as well.

              You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

              by murrayewv on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:24:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  As I found out on a Facebook page for our (0+ / 0-)

              HOA in our Houston neighborhood during a police search for a carjacking suspect in our area, lots of people have firearms and bemoaned the fact that the suspect didn't seek to hide in their backyards.  

              However, the recent spate of breakins happen during the mid-morning hours, when the homeowners are away and "strange" vehicles in the area are not given a second thought because of all the remodeling and building going on.  Intruders are in and out in minutes.  Every empty home undergoing remodeling for resale has had its new appliances stolen--thieves simply back up a truck in the driveway and off they go.  

              And the guns for protection during a break-in? They are simply stolen during the daylight burglaries and wind up becoming "illegal" guns.

        •  Apples to Oranges (0+ / 0-)

          you're blending/confusing 3-4 major issues; easy to do since what he have here is a perfect F'd up storm of several huge, combined problems.

          But let's not make bogus comparisons between the failure of alcohol/drug prohibiton and the alleged failure of gun/high capacity magazine bans to prevent violence/death.

          Very few (any) citizens in Japan own guns; the result is a very low gun violence/death rate. Let's not pretend strict gun control doesn't work-- for the general law-abiding population.

          The NRA talking point oft repeated by "progressives": "but criminals still get guns and high capacity magazines!" is an ignorant red herring; totally meant to confuse the issue and forever stall resolution of the problem.

          The problem in Chicago and elsewhere is gun laws are not being rigorously enforced. That's a serious problem, a serious FAIL by Chicago political leadership.

          However, what sort of sense does it make to throw the baby out with the bathwater-- i.e. Chicago is not doing enough to enforce their current gun laws, so let's allow everyone easy access to semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines, including mentally ill people/people on anti-depressants, etc.

          This is the worst sort of nonsense.

          "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

          by Superpole on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:18:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Very many people in Norway own guns, (0+ / 0-)

            the result is still a very low rate of gun deaths.

            Ergo -- lots of guns means low gun deaths.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:27:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Apples to Oranges - Again (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              murrayewv, lyvwyr101

              I get it, however I'd be willing to wager Norwegians are intelligent, and responsible enought to NOT leave loaded handguns lying around the house where their children can get hold of them-- unlike numerous ignorant people in our nation.

              In addition, they're not dumb enough to succumb to The Fear; i.e. the notion in our nation there's hundreds of criminals running up and down their streets at all hours of the day and night-- and as the pathetic shill testified in congress last week "mothers protecting their babies must have Bushmaster rifles".

              Let's not get off track here. As I've been pointing out for some time, our nation is suffering from a perfect F'd up storm due to decades of stupid, failed policies.

              I bring up gun policy in Japan simply because it defuses the nonsensical notion/NRA talking point that strict gun regulations "don't work".

              "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

              by Superpole on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:55:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The real difference, I would bet, is that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, Superpole

                Norwegian society is not so stratified as ours, and that cultural values to not support senseless violence.

                Most gun crimes are exactly that: crimes that happen with guns.  It's easier to rob somebody if you're pointing a gun in their face.  It's also  easier to have things go real bad wrong if the perpetrator of the crime is holding a gun.

                Ditto for violent assaults, and even intentional murders.

                I must have missed the testimony about mothers protecting their babies with Bushmasters.

                I'll bet you made that up, didn't you?

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:24:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, some conservative female whackjob says (0+ / 0-)

                  women feel more confident protecting their screaming babies if they have a SCARY-LOOKING gun.

                  She kind of reminded me of $arah Palin.

                  *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                  by glorificus on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 05:53:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  LOL, Nope, It's Real (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac
                  I'll bet you made that up, didn't you?
                  Check the transcript from the hearing-- it's real.

                  There's no way this absurdity/insanity can be contrived; it's proof of just how unhinged our nation is.

                  "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

                  by Superpole on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:35:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Somebody else pointed that out. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Superpole

                    Sigh.

                    And here I always thought that the typical self-defense situation took place at a range that

                    a) doesn't quite require the power of an AR-15, and
                    b) benefitted from something that was easier to handle and harder for the threat to grab, or
                    c) didn't require much in the way of aim -- like a shotgun.

                    There is an argument to be made that the real purpose of using a gun in self-defense is that you want to scare the assailant away, not shoot him, but, honestly, the business end of any gun's barrel is pretty scary.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:25:29 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Agreed... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dinotrac
                      but, honestly, the business end of any gun's barrel is pretty scary.
                      Millions have succumbed to The Fear. it's not enough to simply scare a criminal off your doorstep or out of your backyard-- you must kill him deader than hell... otherwise he may return later with more firepower than you.. or maybe with 3-4 of his thug friends.. and they will "get you".

                      "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

                      by Superpole on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:17:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Hi Superpole-how you doin'? (0+ / 0-)

                Absolutely correct--in my opinion.

                There may be a lot of guns in Norway and a low number of gun-deaths---but here in the US we have a lot of guns and a very high number of gun-deaths.

                The difference IS the mentality---we've had a steady relentless dose of stupid---on a daily basis---followed by a dash of fear----over hordes of criminals and---frankly---brown skinned people rampaging thru our streets.

                Ludicrous and horrific---all at the same time.

                The NRA played the fear-card----to an incredible degree of success for them-- and complete and utter failure---for this country.

                They've played on racial prejudice---regional biases---class differences---political differences---religious differences---you name it---they've expolited every bias and prejudice there is in this country---and made money hand over fist doing it.

                They have literally worked to destroy this country----for the sake of  a profit----and they have engaged in a shameless expolitation of the second amendment for political clout.

                What a price we pay for the sake of a profit margin.

                Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

                by lyvwyr101 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:59:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Not by American standards. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              murrayewv
              Very many people in Norway own guns,
              We have the most privately owned guns per capita of any nation in the world, by a fairly wide margin.
              •  If you do the math, you will find that the (0+ / 0-)

                shooting death per gun ratio in Norway is about ten times lower than it is in the United States.

                You will also find that Norway, despite having roughly 40% as many guns per capita as the US, has a homicide by firearm rate that is 35% that of the US, has a homicide by firearm rate that is only 1% of that in the US.

                In fact, even though their firearm ownership per capita is 52 times higher than the Japanese, their homicide by firearm rate is barely twice the rate in Japan.

                By contrast, Brazil has 9% as many guns per capita as the US, but 5 times the homicide by firearm rate.

                It's not enough to just tote up the guns.  The number of guns is important, but it's not sufficient to explain the propensity of Americans to shoot each other down.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 04:41:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOL, homicides per firearm. (0+ / 0-)

                  Could you come up with a more meaningless statistic?

                  •  LOL, it's your statistic. (0+ / 0-)

                    Your argument was that plentiful guns lead to plentiful killings.

                    That, my friend, is a killings per firearm argument.

                    That makes the statistic yours, not mine.  I just went and gathered a few examples.   I agree, by the way, that it's essentially meaningless, and ripe for cherry-picking.

                    By the way, I also generated a couple of typos in the course of editing badly.  The sentence should have read:

                    You will also find that Norway, despite having roughly 35% as many guns per capita as  the US, has a homicide by firearm rate that is only 1% of that in the US.

                    The bottom line is that guns alone don't explain the problem.  The ready availability of guns certainly must amplify the problem, but there's more going on than that.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:49:28 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Banning assault weapons (0+ / 0-)

        is why 2nd rights advocates laugh at you. I'm not kidding. It bespeaks stunning ignorance and gun fetishism.

        VERY few crimes are committed with assault rifles. We live in a country of 350,000,000 people. Look at thta number. Somewhere someone is going to commit a shocking crime. The media is going to nationalise it. Gun controllers (or whatever group on whatever subject) are going to react emotionally like the children most  "groups" are.

        I believe the long barrel weapons used most in crime are a browning pump shotgun and (again if i remember correctly) a 30/06 hunting rifle. The most common weapon overall i believe is the 9mm semi pistol. It may be the .380 now.

        We already have ridiculously restrictive laws on both. Even in hardcore gun rights states the restrictions are usually absolutely stunning.

        And how is that working out??? This piece talks about gun violence in chicato. We both know that is handguns. And chicago has stunning (and racist) restrictions on them. How is that working out? It isnt.

        The answer to crime is not removing the rights of law abiding citizens any more than it is imprisoning the entirety of african american males, hispanics and poor whites (which is our current policy).

        The real solution is to end poverty. But few here wants to hear that because the average bank account here is quite full and the average dk member  is very white.

        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

        by cdreid on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:15:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I applaud the author for being honest (0+ / 0-)

      It's an extraordinarily rare trait for gun controllers.

      The problem with YOUR argument is one of the principle arguments of 2nd amdnement supporters: Youre arguing that only the upper classes should be allowed to own guns. IE keep them out of the hands of those dark and poor people. It is imho one of the two most powerful arguments (the other being  that yes.. the right to bear arms is indeed at its core the right of the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government).

      The long term answer is radical reform of a very corrupt and rigged faux-capitalist system.

      You wont get support for that among gun control advocates though as they tend to be... finanically better off... white.. they like the system just fine.

      Also awesome post

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:08:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site