Skip to main content

Last week, students at Cary-Grove High School in Illinois heard two gunshots in the school hallway. The gun was loaded with blanks. It was a drill to teach those suburban students to recognize the sound of live gunfire.

For many who live in urban Chicago, that sound is all too recognizable. At a Senate hearing on gun violence last week, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) pointed out that Chicago is "awash in guns," despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

The local nightly news is a grim reminder of that statement for those of us who live in the city. More than 500 people died because of gun violence in Chicago last year. This year, the toll is already at 40.

The deaths only tell part of the story. Far too unreported are the thousands upon thousands of violent crimes committed with guns. My own mother and father were held at gunpoint during a robbery several years ago. I hear gunfire periodically from my apartment, and I live on the north side of Chicago in a working-class neighborhood. Yes, the city is awash in guns, and yes, the solution to this epidemic of violence needs to be a holistic one focusing on education, jobs, and poverty. But at the very least, comprehensive, federal gun control can help triage the situation.

Learn more about Chicago's gun violence below the fold ...

1.  Meet the victims.

During last week's hearing, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in an emotional plea for action, noted that "Too many children are dying. Too many children." Alden Loury at The Chicago Reporter brings us the sobering numbers:

From 2008 through 2012, nearly half of Chicago’s 2,389 homicide victims were killed before their 25th birthdays. In 2011, the most recent year for which the data were available, more than 56 percent of individuals who committed murder were also under 25.
2.  Meet John Riggo. Meet his store, "Chuck's Gun Shop."  

Conservatives frequently point to the volume of gun violence in Chicago to claim that gun control laws are ineffective. Yes, Chicago does have relatively strong gun control laws on the books, but it's not Chicago that's the problem.

As Durbin said, Chicago is "awash in guns," but most of them are bought (legally) out of the city or out of the state.

Chuck's Gun Shop is a tiny, unassuming gun shop in Riverdale, Illinois. That shop "sold more guns between 1996 and 2000 that ended up in the hands of criminals than any store in the country."  A Chicago Sun-Times analysis last year revealed that almost 20 percent of guns recovered in crimes used within one year of purchase came from that single store.

An ABC-7 investigation several years ago revealed that suburban gun shop owners don't blink an eye when a Chicago resident purchases a gun. These suburban gun shops are a haven for straw purchasers. Cracking down on such straw purchasers would directly impact Chicago's gun violence.

3.  This is why we need a national framework:

This graphic, from The New York Times, illustrates why Chicago's gun control measures to date aren't enough.

Newt Gingrich has claimed that "If gun control works, Chicago ought to be safe."

If Gingrich knew how logic works, he wouldn't have made that argument.

Chicago's streets are being flooded by weapons from out of state. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced a bill to crack down on the gun trafficking and straw purchases that contribute to this flow of guns from one jurisdiction to the next. To be clear, the illegal influx of guns into urban areas isn't just a Chicago problem. According to Gillibrand, "[e]ighty five percent of weapons used in crimes in my state come from out of state and 90 percent of them are illegal."

David Spielfogel, senior adviser to Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, summed up the problem:

“Chicago is not an island...We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”
4.  The NRA wants to make it easier to buy a gun in Illinois (and, well, everywhere).

Illinois used to have a ban on carrying concealed firearms until a federal appeals court held in a 2-1 decision that the ban was unconstitutional. Now the state legislature is scrambling to come up with an alternative. Some are looking to New York as a  model:

Known as a "may issue" state, a typical gun owner in New York must show "proper cause" in order to get a permit to carry a gun in public.

Proper cause is defined as "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." However, New York has a decentralized permitting system, meaning each county and the city of New York issues permits and therefore can establish their own set of guidelines and rules. So, what may be considered proper cause in one county may not meet the same standard in another.

Of course, the NRA will have none of that. The group has introduced a bill this week that would make Illinois a "shall issue" state—meaning a permit would have to be issued to anyone who fulfills the training and qualification requirements of the state statute.

3.  Not all Democrats are helping.

Sure, there are Democrats in this city and state who are trying to stem the tide of violence. But then there are Democrats who aren't helping advance the right side of the gun control debate at all:

“We’ve buried far too many of our own children over the years—every day. When are we going to go after the criminals? When are we going to go after the people who buy guns for those who aren’t able to go get their backgrounds checked? We need to strengthen the laws we already have instead of keep talking about new ones...We need to do more about the criminals. Cook County has an assault weapons ban. We have the highest amount of murders in the country. Let’s do more about enforcing the laws we have at the same time doing more about keeping our streets safe,” she said, adding she backs a universal background check and tougher criminal penalties on straw purchasers.
That's IL-02 Democratic candidate Debbie Halvorson explaining why she would vote against an assault weapons ban if elected to Congress. The 2nd district includes part of the southeast side of Chicago as well as some adjacent suburbs. And Toi Hutchinson, another Democrat in the race where gun control has become the key issue, doesn't think Illinois should have a state-wide concealed carry ban.

On Friday, Daily Kos endorsed Robin Kelly in that race, a candidate who says she is "proud" of her F rating from the NRA.  

Last week, Hadiya Pendleton became Chicago's 42nd homicide this year. Days before she was shot down near her high school, the honor student had performed at President Obama's inauguration. Her murderer is still at large. Earlier this year, a mother buried her last surviving child. All of them were gunned down in Chicago over the course of two decades.

What we are witnessing in America's cities is what one mayor has called "slow motion mass murder." The response from the federal government to address the daily death toll must be comprehensive and, most importantly, must be backed up with local law enforcement resources so that parents in cities like Chicago bury less of their children every year.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But, but, but the NRA and the gun fetishists (even (55+ / 0-)

    among us) keep telling us that Chicago is proof that gun control leads to more deaths!  You mean that they are full of bull?

    I thought so.  Thanks for this very clear expose of the problem in Chicago.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:34:02 AM PST

  •  Holistic approach is correct ... (39+ / 0-)

    ... but time consuming.  The Boomers benefitted from a generational commitment to good public education, decent wages and a shot at a higher standard of living.  How can we replicate that if the nation elects conservative sociopaths every other midterm election?

    Gun violence = Poverty violence

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:36:56 AM PST

    •  Alden Loury's piece (39+ / 0-)

      dives into some more staggering statistics that absolutely reinforce the need for that holistic approach:

      The city’s 21 leading communities for youth homicides, all majority-black or majority-Latino communities on the city’s South, Southwest and West sides, account for just 32 percent of the city’s residents. But they also account for:

      More than 73 percent of the city’s 1,118 homicide victims under the age of 25 from 2008 through 2012

      Almost 70 percent of Chicago’s population loss between 2000 and 2010. Those 21 communities collectively lost 140,000 residents during that time. The city as a whole lost 200,000 residents

      More than 53 percent of the locations of Chicago public school closings announced since 2001

      Nearly 43 percent of Chicago’s 109,000 foreclosure filings from January 2007 through June 2012

      More than 71 percent of the city’s 138 public elementary schools that were low-performing in math [“Low-performing” is defined as schools where fewer than 10 percent of students’ standardized test scores exceeded state standards during the 2011-2012 school year]

      Nearly 68 percent of the 221 Chicago public elementary schools that were low-performing in reading

      Nearly 59 percent of the 46 public high schools whose average 11th grade ACT composite scores were below 16

      More than 56 percent of the city’s 72,296 teen births from 1999 through 2009

      Furthermore, these communities also have heightened levels of poverty, unemployment and percentages of adults without high school diplomas.

      When you combine that broken society (and it is very much broken) with the absolute flood of weapons on the street, you get to the point we're at today.  Fixing that broken society is a generational effort that will take a long, long time, but getting illegal weapons off the street is something we can do immediately to help the problem in the meantime.

      Chicago police have been confiscating guns at record levels...despite having about a third of New York City's population, if I recall correctly, CPD confiscated more than 9 times as many guns. This is where Durbin was spot on. Chicago is awash in guns, and the police can't get them off the street fast enough to keep up with the rate of illegal possession/purchases.

      On a side note, here's a fascinating program that's relatively new but that has some huge potential to help on the social side of the equation:

      In Chicago last school year, 245 public school students were shot, 27 of them fatally.

      It's a high toll. To try to find out who might be next, Chicago Public School officials developed a probability model by analyzing the traits of 500 shooting victims over a recent two-year period. They noted that the vast majority were poor, black and male, and had chronic absences, bad grades and serious misconduct.

      Using this probability model, they identified more than 200 teenagers who have a shockingly good chance of being shot — a better than 1 in 5 chance within the next two years.

      Project Director Jonathan Moy says the probability model isn't perfect, but it's working.

      "Approximately half of the victims who have been shot this year were identified using the probability model," he says.

      •  B-B-B-But why (7+ / 0-)

        wouldyou ever use science at a time like this?

        If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

        by marykk on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:54:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How morbidly depressing. (7+ / 0-)

        It looks like such an overwhelming problem that any attempt would be futile.   The alternative however, of giving up on these communities and these children, is equally unacceptable.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:18:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Report card: An A in likely to die and a B (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, a2nite

        in English at the end of the term.

        Truly morbid statistics.

      •  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 ]

      •  Therefore, in addition, early intervention. (0+ / 0-)

        Even if it has to be a volunteer effort, visit every pregnant woman, visit every residence during the first 24 hours of a new born baby's arrival (as is done in many well off communities), make weekly visits until needs are identified.

        There are enough ready, willing, and able men and women in each community to get this done. Get in front of the next generation. Intervene before the traumas inflict the children. Build a welcoming spirit in communities by not conflating this with punishment to adults. Babies come first though. Don't let fear of rights violations prevent honest responsible community help for teen and struggling mothers who may have no idea how to ask for help.

        Gun laws, policing, tragically, even education are all after the fact. Fix them but also intervene with a mother-child centric commitment (one that replaces the fruits of two healthy, happy, safe and loving sets of grandparents) because the trauma these babies and mothers are suffering is preventible, and cheap. by far less cost than when left alone for the trauma to multiply ruined lives and public costs for generations.

        How many babies are born every day in these 21 communities? That's the baseline. Infant care and early childhood development. Everything else is after the fact.

      •  Add in the Fact Chicago is now a Regional (0+ / 0-)

        drug distribution hub for Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel:

        Members of Mexico’s most powerful cartel are selling a record amount of heroin and methamphetamine from Little Village, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. From there, the drugs move to the streets of south and west Chicago, where they are sold in assembly-line fashion in mostly black neighborhoods.

        ‘‘Chicago, with 100,000 gang members to put the dope on the street, is a logistical winner for the Sinaloa cartel,’’ Jack Riley, the DEA’s special agent in charge of the Chicago unit, said after touring Little Village. ‘‘We have to operate now as if we’re on the Mexican border.’’

        It is not just Chicago. Increasingly, as drug cartels have amassed more control and influence in Mexico, they have extended their reach deeper into the United States, establishing inroads across the Midwest and Southeast, according to American counternarcotics officials.

        Anyone want to speculate THIS is a big part of the gun violence/death problem in Chicago?

        "We have to operate now as if we're on the Mexican border".

        Again, folks, what we have here is a massive FAIL regarding several long-standing, national policies: namely our pathetic, failed "war on drugs".

        Chicago is awash not just with guns but also illegal drugs; the two go hand in hand. However, banning both is part of the major FAIL.

        http://www.bostonglobe.com/...

        "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 01:35:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is so true, and heartbreaking. (4+ / 0-)

      As a Boomer myself, I look back on my childhood and wish that my grandchildren could live in such a world.  The economy was booming, the safety net was strong, college was affordable for students of all social classes who were so inclined, and for those that were not, there was vocational education.  Both white- and blue-collar jobs paid a living wage.

      The conservative sociopaths, starting with Reagan, have destroyed all that.  So many, many young people have no hope.  There is a very strong mindset in this country - backed by mega-wealthy wingers like the Kochs - of "every man for himself", despising the poor, the weak, the sick, the old.  The generational commitment you describe is now labeled "socialism" which itself has been turned into a dirty word.

      The America the Reaganauts destroyed was a good one, the right one.  Is it possible to get it back?

      Fox News is to the truth as a flaming bag of dog shit is to a packed lunch. --MinistryOfTruth

      by snazzzybird on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:26:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  On NPR (15+ / 0-)

    immediately after Sandy Hook they did a story about Chicago gun crime. Apparently a major middleman in this gun trafficking is mothers of young men, young men who normally are not legally allowed to own guns. I was shocked to hear this.

    The child of an NRA gun nut slaughtered the children.

    by plok on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:39:52 AM PST

  •  The problem is not Chicago (14+ / 0-)

    ...But all the other localities where people can freely buy guns and import them into the city, illegally if need be. If we had a national gun control law that worked uniformly, this would not be so easy or widespread. But the gun manufacturers work with state legislatures to make sure that gun laws in neighboring states remain lax, so gun sales can continue to boom, so to speak. And the right's media continues to trumpet fear and paranoia that encourages still more gun sales, and puts more guns on the street to be stolen or misused.
    There is not one iota of evidence that increasing numbers of guns in a population makes them any safer than fewer numbers of guns.

    •  The problem is not Chicago? (6+ / 0-)

      The problem is Chicago. Why isn't the murder rate equivalent in those states where the guns are coming from, where gun ownership per capita is much higher? It is ludicrous to abdicate responsibility of the elected officials in that state and that city for the problems they are facing. To excuse the communities that propagate the culture and lifestyle that begets this violence is also absurd. You should immediately fire the Mayor, the Chief of Police and the Attorney General. What they're doing isn't keeping anyone safe, if they are doing anything at all. It's on them. It's on Illinois. It's on Chicago.

      -6.1,-4.9 Imagine...no religion.

      by mdbyrne on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:06:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good graphic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, Gorette, BYw

        On where the guns used in Chicago shootings came from here:

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        •  excellent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BYw

          one might add that these are probably point data in terms of addresses and that the paths these guns took would be even more fine grained and if one took out the inter-urban transfers that might prove redundant that the problem is even less concentrated

          Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

          by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:18:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  mobility cannot be constrained unless you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BYw

            want the kinds of pass laws under apartheid or any authoritarian national state

            Close to Home
            Chicago is seen as having some of the most restrictive gun ordinances in the country. Gun shops are banned, and no civilian gun ranges exist. There is a ban on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But more than 15,000 of the guns traced by the police came from just outside the city limits in Cook County and in neighboring towns that permit gun stores.
            and gun origin is not gun path

            Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

            by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:27:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Seems to me (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BYw, Recall

              That the most paranoid gun-advocates, who believe they and their AK-47s are the only things standing in between freedom and total government tyranny are (by stockpiling weapons, agitating for gov't overthrow, and thwarting any efforts to keep the guns out of the hands of 'bad guys') helping to create the very police state that they so desperately fear.

              •  self-fulfilling prophecies abound (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Faito
                helping to create the very police state that they so desperately fear.

                Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

                by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:52:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli

      Of course that will get the "states rights" crowd up in arms but they are also the ones who caterwaul that we should "enforce existing laws", all 20,000+ of which the NRA has worked tirelessly for 3 decades to weaken.

  •  The earlier, FP'd image of Wayne (16+ / 0-)

    prompted the creation of this:

    It's in the image library if anyone wants to use it.

  •  The Cary Grove reference caught my eye (16+ / 0-)

    Cary and Fox River Grove are farming communities that became exurbs due to the availability of commuter rail.  There was a time, not so many decades ago, that kids in those communities would have guns in their cars and hunt after school; and even I would not have thought twice about it. Of course they were long guns and could not be concealed easily.

    It is not just the type and availability of firearms that has changed, somehow there has been a significant attitudinal change for the worse.  I would no longer ever assume that a kid carrying a weapon was presumptively benign.

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:46:01 AM PST

    •  So what changed, marykk? What changed? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marykk, cocinero
      There was a time, not so many decades ago, that kids in those communities would have guns in their cars and hunt after school; and even I would not have thought twice about it. Of course they were long guns and could not be concealed easily.
      The availability of cheap pistols.  

      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:35:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Partly that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn

        but there has to be more to it.  Because I wouldn't trust a kid with a long gun, either.  Although our neighbors in Canada have them and don't run around blasting each other away.

        If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

        by marykk on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:39:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What changed is the constant fearmongering (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus

        from AM hate radio and Hoax Noise.  You just know that Matt Lanza's "prepper" mother was a Glen Beck fan.  The guy who shot those 3 Pennsylvania troopers had books by Hannity and Bernard Goldberg in his car (one of them titled "The 100 People who are Screwing Up America").

        As for the Chicago reasons,  the decimation of the industrial base on the south and west sides left thousands of people without any chance of getting any job what-so-ever, so drug traffic and prostitution is filling the void.   The drug trade was largely ignored as long as it stayed a "black thing" but when rich white suburban kids started driving into the city as far as the first few exits to buy crack and now heroine suddenly the call went out to save the (white) children!!  This prompted several  previous police chiefs to use the old axiom "you kill the snake by cutting off its head", so they arrested most of the old guard gang leaders, leaving a leadership vacuum which the young turks exploited by spreading their own gangs into other gangs' territories, thus starting a whole new round of turf wars.

        The ONLY answer is JOBS in those jobless areas.

        •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

          Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:01:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I could use some heroine. (0+ / 0-)

            Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

            by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:02:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, "wow". It was never a problem until (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glorificus

              the rich white kids from the wealthy suburbs  started traveling the heroin highway.

              http://www.youtube.com/...

              •  They sell plenty of "H" to poor black brothers. (0+ / 0-)

                To blame black on black gun crime on only the white drug customers is just silly.  

                Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

                by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 03:28:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't, you are projecting (0+ / 0-)

                  What I said was the black on black crime spike happened AFTER the cops finally decided to do something about the open air drug markets AFTER the rich white kids started dying.  So they took all the older gang leaders off the streets.  They were the ones who kept the gang wars at bay.  They had defined turfs and some kind of "law of the streets".    The young gangbangers  started jockeying for supremacy and split their own gangs up into factions which started to mow each other down, and some factions spread  out into other gang's areas.  This is what started the all out gang warfare that has been happening for the last year or so.

                  The previous top cop even took a page from Hill Street Blues and ordered ALL of the gang leaders to a secret meeting at a neutral site to tell them to stop the killing OR ELSE.  The truce lasted only a few months.

                  http://www.cbsnews.com/...

                  Pay attention next time.

                •  I didn't, you are projecting. And ignoring. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

                  I pointed out the absolute lack of jobs in those areas, and also gave a time line of WHEN the whole thing fell apart and why.  The powers that be didn't care about black drug usage as long as it stayed in the hood.  When rich white kids from the burbs started dying is when the crack down started.  When all the older gang leaders were in power they abided by a kind "code of the streets", where certain gangs controlled certain turfs.  

                  When the older gang leaders were rounded up and shipped to prison the power vacuum caused the young turks to jockey for power, causing rifts within their own gangs, which in turn created inter gang violence.  Some gangs fractured into different sects, so to speak. and some tried to muscle into other gangs' turf.

                  That is what started the all out gang warfare that has been happening for the last year and a half or so.

                  Former Police Supt Weiss even took a page from "Hill Street Blues" and ORDERED a gang summit at a neutral site to warn them to knock it off with all the killing, OR ELSE! (RICO charges.)

                  The gangbangers didn't like that and whined all the way to a complicit press.

                  http://www.cbsnews.com/...

                  The truce lasted only a few months, until some young turk tried to move into a rival's territory.  Then, as now, all hell broke loose.  Bang bang.

                  Pay attention next time.

                  As I said, JOBS is the answer.

  •  Also, mayor Bloomberg and new York city (14+ / 0-)

    Did an analysis of guns used in crimes and they had the exact same issue, the majority of guns came from states, such as Viriginia which had extremely slack purchase requirements....all the while, the republican state legislature had something like 69 "kill your mama" regulations last session to make even easier to pack heat.

    Because removing the one handgun a month purchase was just to onerous on the gun trafficture..

    Takin it to the Streets! time to GOTV

    by totallynext on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:46:10 AM PST

    •  yes, but (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, cocinero

      it only takes one single middleman within the Chicago area to flood the streets with guns from Chicago guns stores.

      The child of an NRA gun nut slaughtered the children.

      by plok on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:26:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA says: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nominalize, cocinero, glorificus, BYw

      "Let's enforce the laws we have on the books already!"  The right-to-insurrection crowd screams the same thing.  But...

      But which laws should we enforce?  Should we enforce Virginia's law that allowed  Seung-Hui Cho to buy two semiautomatic handguns and 19 (10-15 round) magazines, all legally, even though he had been judged more than once as being mentally ill and a danger to himself?  He passed the NICS easily because he had never been committed to a mental hospital against his will!  

      •  Not according to Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Virginia officials and other law experts have argued that, under United States federal law, Barnett's order meant that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and was thus ineligible to purchase firearms under federal law; and that the state of Virginia erred in not enforcing the requirements of the federal law.
        The Comonwealth of VA dropped the ball here.  

        Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

        by DavidMS on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:25:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Virginia (0+ / 0-)

          He bought the Glock at Roanoke Firearms, after a computer background check found no felony convictions or mental health commitments that would have barred him from buying a gun.

          Cho had been court-ordered to receive outpatient mental treatment. That made it illegal for him to have a gun. But at the time, only commitments to mental hospitals were included in the database used to screen potential gun buyers.

          VA changed its law after Seung Hui Cho murdered 32 and injured 17 more at VA Tech.

  •  "Guns solve problems." Until that thought changes (13+ / 0-)

    I don't see any hope for improvement.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:46:29 AM PST

    •  Gun violence (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril, cocinero, a2nite

      Costs us all billions of dollars a year.  We don't even know the real numbers, though, because the NRA has successfully squelched the research by CDC and others.

      For all the caterwauling about the money flushed down the toilet of Solyndra...why is there no objection to the piles of money that a bunch of bulletholes in Americans costs all of us?

      And then they object to forcing gun owners to being forced to buy insurance.  Or at least taxed annually on their weapons to help pay for the real costs of their WMDs.

    •  If your opponent won't meet...... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      without brandishing a firearm.....

      I've been on a self imposed hiatus from current events.  This is why:

      I don't see any hope for improvement.
      Sadly.

      "The first duty of a revolutionist is to get away with it.". Abbie Hoffman

      by Joes Steven on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:11:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Death toll would be much higher..... (16+ / 0-)

    .....if not for the fire department's EMS performance.

    They pick up about 1,500 gun shot victims a year and take them to the city's trauma centers which, unfortunately, are very experienced at dealing with gunshot wounds.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:58:13 AM PST

  •  Merchants of Death (9+ / 0-)

    It comes down to money and political power. We have the firearms laws we do because too many people have gotten rich and elected on paranoia, lies, and cynical disdain for human life.

    If anything, they've gotten greedier and more aggressive.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:06:16 AM PST

  •  Here is some of the mind-set we are up against: (13+ / 0-)
    “Once you put a gun on, you gain situational awareness,” he says. After he bought his first gun, he says, “I felt grown up. It was like a coming-of-age thing. I felt like an adult.”
    This is from a gun-rights activist in RI; but the thought provcess is the same with those in Chicago and elsewhere. Unfortunately, in Chicago too many of them are kids, who feel "like an adult"

    Read the frightening article by the gun-blogger in
    WaPo

    Scary stuff....

    •  Yeah, well that is why we need Wilderness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy, annieli

      These urban chair-bound, advertisment-consuming, navel- gazing flaccid city dwellers have never experienced ANYTHING bigger than themselves, and a gun is the first flirtation with power and mortality in their narrow, selfish lives. No WONDER so many young me get addicted to guns. They are divorced from experience which can kill them in the natural world, and they never learn respect or self respect.

      And this is not snark. When people are so divorced from the Natural world that they think so highly of themselves and their measly manmade technology, they become mentally ill. That is now society-wide. Congratulations, America. You are now lacking in all humility or self-knowledge.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:33:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  gu(b) ownership and gang membership (0+ / 0-)

      https://www.ncjrs.gov/...

      The findings reported here suggest that
      interventions to stop illegal gun use by
      boys must begin when they are quite
      young. Because boys’ reasons for carrying
      guns change as they age, interventions
      must adapt to these changes. Interventions
      must also make boys feel safer in
      their environments. Additionally, strategies
      to reduce illegal gun carrying should
      probably be different for transitory and
      long-term carriers. Because there is so
      much turnover in boys’ illegal gun ownership
      and carrying, confiscating a single
      illegal gun probably stops several boys
      from possessing that gun over a period
      of time. Finally, because such a high percentage
      of urban boys carry illegal guns
      (5 to10 percent in the Rochester study),
      targeting this population for interventions
      might be an effective strategy.
      In addition to the findings reported above,
      the Rochester study compared the amount
      of serious violent crime that boys committed
      during periods when they carried illegal
      guns to the amount of crime the same
      boys committed when they did not carry
      illegal guns. The amount of serious violent
      crime the boys committed during periods
      of active gun carrying was more than five
      times the amount they committed when
      they did not carry guns. Even though the
      number of boys who carried illegal guns
      was relatively small, since these boys were
      high-rate offenders even when they did
      not carry guns, decreasing gun carrying
      among them could avert many thousands
      of serious crimes. This means that preventing
      gun carrying among at-risk boys
      could go a long way toward

      Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

      by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:46:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chucks Gun Shop is in Riverdale, not Riverside (6+ / 0-)
  •  Chicago is a war zone. (7+ / 0-)
    A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012
    From Wikipedia.
  •  it should be shall issue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, hmi, Hangpilot

    why should our local pols have that kind of power. their pals will get the favors, the rest of us can suck our thumbs. it used to be like that in indiana. no more. if you want to know how that worked, well we carried longs guns in front seats of our cars. billy

  •  FEDERAL gun regulations are the only answer. (8+ / 0-)

    Despite Chicago's having some of the most restrictive gun regulations in the country, as with New York, guns are still readily available from neighboring states that may have no gun regulation at all.  As far as the transport of guns is concerned, this country may as well have no state borders at all.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:10:42 AM PST

    •  The pro-gun (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero

      advocates and their enablers---their facilitators--- have had free reign in this country--- for way too long.

      And we have paid way too  high a price for it.

      They are going down---whether they like it or not---whether they will admit to it or not.

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

      by lyvwyr101 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:00:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am an unapologetic supporter of the 2nd Amendmen (22+ / 8-)

    There are so many lapses of logic in this argument that in the interest of brevity I will not even attempt to answer them all in one post.

    To attempt to answer the issue of inner-city gun violence with "gun control" is an exercise in futility. The gun grabbers have no idea where the guns are, how many guns there are and in whose hands they are. Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?

    You may try, but you will initiate a civil war in the attempt.

    The most effective solution is to end the prohibition on recreational drugs. Do you see gangsters on the corner gunning each other down because a rival gang is encroaching on their alcohol-selling territory? No, you don't. You see folks generally peacefully making a transaction at the local liquor store or corner bar, helping the economy and filling coffers with tax revenue. One would see this in the era of prohibition, however. Their response was the first gun control laws. But until the 18th amendment was repealed, the problem persisted.

    The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves. People will not turn in their guns for the most part. How do you propose to get them without starting a civil war/revolution?

    •  HR for "gun grabber" and threat of civil war. (10+ / 0-)

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:23:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Talk about a lapse in logic! (9+ / 0-)
      To attempt to answer the issue of inner-city gun violence with "gun control" is an exercise in futility. The gun grabbers have no idea where the guns are, how many guns there are and in whose hands they are. Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?
      I often see this argument from people who live in the black and white world of most guns rights absolutists.  Here's the thing you need to wrap your head around: A reduction in the number of guns available doesn't have to be 100% effective for it to be effective.  Yes there will be guns in the hands of bad guys and guys who are good guys until the moment they become bad guys, but fewer guns means fewer guns available for people who want to use them for harm.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:37:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  ...final stop against a tyrannical government... (10+ / 0-)

      Snark right?

      "A final stop against tyannical government being necessary to the security of a free State the right of the people to
      keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
      Gobbletygook.

    •  welcome to Daily Kos. (6+ / 0-)

      ;7)


      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

      by Glen The Plumber on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This comment (13+ / 0-)

      is in no way HRable. Uprated to counter abuse.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:46:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  stop against tyrant gov? take on army fireteam? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, Cartoon Peril

      no I didn't that so, because that would not accomplish much except getting killed

      80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

      by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:53:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am quite experienced in combat. (4+ / 0-)

        What you seem to not understand is that American private gun owners are equivalent to the militaries of the top 20 militaries in the world, including of course, the US, China and Russia.

        Our military is predominantly made up of the children of these same Americans. The "gun culture" sends their children to protect our freedoms (however disabused they are in their efforts). You misapprehend the situation if you believe the majority of the military will disarm their communities.

        That is a dangerous misapprehension. Again, I make no threats. I dont seek to lead a revolution. I am stating facts as I see them.

        Gun confiscation is the Rubicon for a large group of Americans. Those proposing any such idea are treading on exceptionally dangerous ground - possibly being unaware of doing so. I want you to be aware.

        •  nobody is going to confiscate guns (3+ / 0-)

          that just sounds unreal.  We need a rifle (I hate to use the word gun because we would never use a pistol to fight the government, we would use a rifle) to protect us from our government.  Why couldn't we just get fed up with our government leaders and vote them out?

          80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

          by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:47:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  voting is just SO much work! (3+ / 0-)

            You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

            by Cartoon Peril on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:55:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Tell me who to vote for... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            who will restore our liberties as defined under the Constitution? I will happily do so. Unfortunately, the oligarchs who control BOTH major parties and 90% of the media do not find that our liberal political philosophy found in the Constitution serves their end to reduce us to serfdom.

            Since they DO control the electoral process and the media, I do not want them to also have a monopoly on force.

            Consider that Congress is uniformly despised yet incumbents have a reelection rate of over 90%. The electoral process effects liberty? Not.

        •  as a combat vet would you worry about civilians (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          armed with handguns? Rifle, of course, but handguns?
          I have a rifle, and my family has owned rifles and shotguns for as far as I can trace because, before The War Between the States.  I too know about a civil war because 660,000 Americans dies in one of our many American Civil Wars.

          80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

          by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:53:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am much more concerned... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Churchill, Samulayo, PavePusher

            by the threat of mass murder/genocide perpetrated by a tyrannical government with a monopoly on the use of arms than I am by a free citizenry in which law abiding citizens are armed with ANY weapon.

            Any knowledge of 20th century history will affirm this concern.

            •  you, sir, are absolutely 100 % correct, (0+ / 0-)

              but do you think we are approaching that level? And what good would a armed militia do against Cobra gunships, or Apache gunships?

              80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

              by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:21:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See Vietnam or Afghanistan... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                for your answer to that. I also don't believe our military will fire upon American citizens who are defending themselves against an oppressive government. Most members of our military come from the same "stock" as the gun owners and believe deeply in their oath to defend the Constitution.

                •  Please see, indeed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  YucatanMan

                  What is the American version of the Viet Cong and their patron state, North Vietnam?  Who are the American Taliban?  America has NOTHING like that around which to organize an effective insurgency against the most powerful military the earth has ever seen.  "Same stock?"  What does that even begin to mean in America? Nonsense.

    •  Uprated to offset HRs. (11+ / 0-)

      Pete, I don't agree with you 100%, but I'm intrigued to hear more of what you have to say.

      Welcome to DKos. You've made a hell of a first impression.

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:58:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thank you. (5+ / 0-)

        For the welcome. I dont expect my views to be welcome here, but possibly folk who are open minded to views they do not share will at least have the opportunity to be exposed to them in a non-threatening way.

        I am appalled by the comments who project onto me a desire for civil war as my goal is exactly the opposite. But folks who misapprehend the vehemence with which the gun owner/Patriot community will resist any effort to thwart their natural rights to self-defense need to hear the truth. And I will speak it.

        •  do you support this comment..??.. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, annieli, coquiero
          A revoution is in order, though violence is neither in order, nor would it serve the purpose of freedom. As far as being traitorous, it is very clear in the Declaration of Independence that we have both the right and duty to change our form of government (revolution) should our form of government fail to fufill its purpose of protecting our natural rights. I believe we have the natural right to defend ourselves if exercising this right should bring violence upon us, but revolution is not necessarily violent, and certainly not traitorous.


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:24:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  tyranny? (4+ / 0-)

          who defines tyranny? when in the history of the american republic has the government been "tyrannical"? some common suggestions:

          1. whenever there's a black man in the white house.
          2. whenever there's a democrat in the white house.
          3. whenever my nutty uncle fred thinks he's being robbed by the IRS.
          4. when the black helicopters arrive.

          the conditions become absurd almost immediately. i question the sanity and / or good faith of such arguments.

          the 2nd amendment says nothing about guns and overthrowing a tyrannical government. if we allow anyone the right to own a gun in order to overthrow tyranny, we are allowing mentally unstable persons to dominate the discourse.

          there is no right to overthrow the american governmnet  by violent revolution in the constitution. those who say otherwise should immediately be suspect, and their intentions very carefully examined.

      •  I removed my HR (4+ / 0-)

        after reading this far in the thread, but I'm sure not going to uprate!. The whole idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against tyranny is right-wing nonsense, IMO.

        As to the meaning and applicability of the Second Amendment, that's up to the courts, but I agree with the four dissenters in D.C. v. Heller that it just applies to state militia, not civilians. Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy wrote an activist decision overturning decades of settled law regarding the power of the government to regulate guns for public health and safety. Even then, the majority clearly stated limitations on their decision. It does not come close to the anything-goes interpretation promulgated by the gun lobby.

    •  When they threaten Civil War, you get a Warrant. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, a2nite

      If they dont, you dont. Very simple. Thanks for asking.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:35:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for your concern, lies. (6+ / 0-)

      Your argument against violent revolution is to allow everyone to arm for a violent revolution and start shooting whenever they feel like it?

      Thanks for your concern, but if your theory of precipitating civil war through background checks were anywhere near true, we wouldn't have killed Tim McVeigh.

      By the way, while your tossing around what causes revolution, you might want to keep him in mind as an example.  Just saying.

      Does any rational person think that without totalitarian controls guns can be kept out of the hands of the gangs and gun dealers who comprise the perpetrators of most of this violence?
      Yeah, actually, me and Wayne Lapierre think that background checks and rigorous prosecutions will go a long way.  Get out of your bunker and ask around.
      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves.
      No, the second isn't. That's just an argument made up by people who figure that if they have a right to all the weaponry the US military has in order to make a good fight at revolution, they can have automatics or whatever.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:37:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You misstate my position (0+ / 0-)

        I will refrain from speculating on whether this is by intent or through careless reading - then again, perhaps I am not making myself clear.

        No, I dont believe people should (or will) just start shooting whenever they please. Some will, to be sure, but the majority of Americans and the majority of gun owners will not support this. McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising. Instead, it precipitated revulsion, as was proper.

        The oppressive actions of Waco and Ruby Ridge which led McVeigh to attempt to initiate his uprising precipitated revulsion and an awakening as well. The "Patriot Movement" went underground at that point, which is dangerous. I am very open about my position.

        I am not against most background checks. I believe it is appropriate that we attempt to keep guns from felons and those who are mentally unstable. My position is that there are so many guns in America that this is an impossibility without draconian controls - i.e., totalitarianism - and this would spur violent revolution.

        So, more effectively we should look at the causes of most gun violence. Among others, the lack of opportunity brought on by the economic fascism of both parties and the "war on drugs" is, I think, the primary cause of gun violence. We would be much more effective to address these, as well as having an effective mental health policy, than we would by enacting more "people control" disguised as "gun control".

        And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.

        •  You're turning it on its head. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Cartoon Peril

          The idea that we have to allow people to arm because they are dangerous is exactly backwards.

          And no matter how many times you repeat the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment is not in place as a final check on a tyrannical government, history and reality will prove you wrong every time.
          Actually, I'll never be proven wrong.  I'll be disagreed with by someone with a gun who thinks that they finally see a tyrannical government appear.  Maybe they will have gotten the idea that an assault weapons ban is that point.  Maybe they already think it with the ban on fully automatics.  The point being, when people like you pretend that the individual has a right to determine when tyranny has begun, and that they can use deadly force to overthrow it, you condone their use of violence.    

          You, in other words, don't have the right to revulsion at  McVeigh's act.  You don't get to dare pretend to.

          McVeigh, whom you mention, thought his action would precipitate an uprising.
          So he was wrong about what it would precipitate.  Bad call in strategic terms, but within his second amendment right as you see it.

          Final word: we have guns too, so all the Blackstones and their constitutional theories should think less about what Tench Coxe said and more about what happens to ebels and traitors.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:40:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated to counter BS HR's. (8+ / 0-)

      There is nothing here that is so offensive at to merit being hidden.  Nothing.  Try some decaf, people.  

      Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

      by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:37:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated against HRs for disagreement. (7+ / 0-)

      There are those who don't care for this sort of opinion, but there is nothing in this post that is HRable.

      If you disagree with what is posted here, then do so -- but HRing for disagreement is strictly against site rules.  The "explanations" for the HRs are ludicrous.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:39:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Uh huh (11+ / 0-)

      The Red Dawn wet dream in the following is absolutely the worst argument for allowing unrestricted gun ownership:

      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government. To stop the gun violence through gun control will merely affirm the tyranny of the government in attempting to prevent the sovereign people of the United States from exercising their natural right to defend themselves.
      I can only think of two examples in American history when people used guns to try to stop tyrannical government. (1) The indigenous peoples who were really upset by all of the undocumented immigrants stealing their land and (2) Those who fought to protect their constitutional right to own other human beings as property.  Neither of these efforts ended well.  

      Think about the invocation of Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall.  Those event mark efforts to expand the promise of the Declaration of Independence.  To the extent they succeeded, the success did not come by being armed.  

      And, let's think about the American war for Independence.  Cornwallis did not surrender to a group of unorganized privately armed citizens and privately armed citizens did not prevent the British navy from rescuing his army

      I'm amazed at the number of people who think Red Dawn is a documentary.

      [Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security] do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

      by MoDem on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:51:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not this again... (12+ / 0-)
      The 2nd Amendment is in place as a final stop against a tyrannical government.
      This deep paranoia about "government tyranny" runs rampant among the folks defending the Second Amendment here. And it is paranoid, bordering on the delusional. I don't think I've ever seen a  more frightened group of people afraid of some unseeable bogeyman.

      I wrote a diary the other day highlighting a few of the late, great Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko's columns on guns.

      In this one from 1980 he addresses the paranoid notion that the government is coming to take away all of our "freedoms and liberties" (read: guns):

      Many gun lovers say that if people can’t own guns, they are at the mercy of an oppressive government that might someday take over the country. Only the threat of being shot at by honest citizens keeps government from taking our liberties, they say. Maybe. But once again, how effective is a handgun against the kind of weapons the government can muster – planes, tanks.

      That’s why my organization (the National Association for the Legalization of Machineguns, Bazookas, Hand Grenades, Cannons, Land Mines and Anything Else That Goes Boom) wants the heavy stuff legalized for home use. See how many government inspectors and other bureaucrats would come snooping around if they thought they might step on a hidden land mine as they cross your lawn. And mines would also be effective against those rude people who let their dogs go on your grass.

      It’s that wonderful slogan – “Guns don’t kill; people kill” – that has always made me wonder why certain poisons, such as arsenic, aren’t sold over the counter in drug stores. After all, poisons don’t kill; people kill, right?

      And it’s that spirit that makes me wonder why so many people are concerned about the possible spread of nuclear weapons. I don’t see anything wrong with all kinds of little countries having their own nuclear arsenals.

      After all, “Nuclear bombs don’t kill; people kill.”

      Come to think of it, why can’t individual Americans have their own little nuclear arsenals.

      I’ll have to bring that up at the next meeting.

    •  Fear, fear, fear... (8+ / 0-)

      Fear of a tyrannical government.

      Fear of bad guys lurking around the next corner.

      Fear of touching off a civil war.

      Jeezuz Christ, you must have to walk around in diapers with amount of fear you express in your post.

      No wonder you need a gun.

    •  Tyranny of the government?????? (5+ / 0-)

      How about the tyranny of the gun lovers!!!!!

      Frankly, people who extoll the virtues of guns to protect themselves from the government scare me!!!

      Gun lovers are pushing this to the limit of what our government and its citizens can bear.

    •  Wait a sec (6+ / 0-)
      You may try, but you will initiate a civil war in the attempt.
      I thought most gun owners were "law-abiding citizens"?  If certain guns are made illegal, those who own them will abide by the law and turn them in.  Otherwise, they'll just be criminals, and will deserve to be treated as such.

      As for the method: A mandatory buyback has proven very effective and painless in other stable democracies.  If you don't sell your illegal guns within the grace period, you're a criminal.  Plain and simple.    

      Look, America has a problem with its guns. 30,000 dead and 70,000 wounded every year, and it's steady, even though other crime is going down.  To fix our problem, we can get rid of the people, or we can get rid of the guns.  The NRA and its parroters insist that if we just got rid of (i.e. cut access to) the right people, we could keep the guns.  That's why they focus on bogeymen and criminals and "illegal" guns [nb: all illegal guns were legal when first purchased].

      But most gun deaths are suicides... showing that the person most likely to kill you with a gun is yourself, not some "criminal" or "bad guy out there".  And in most of the others, as you can see on the daily GunFAIL diaries, don't have a career criminal involved either--- it's usually family, friends, or trusted acquaintances, with no discernible mental illness, gunning each other down in a thoughtless moment.  A thoughtless and irrevocable moment.    

      The time is past for ignoring our nation's problems with guns.  The NRA lost that battle, so now it's focusing on the people side of the problem... we have to get rid of the guns or the people.  But we can't get rid of the people.  That leaves the guns...  and all the corny bluster and bravado about civil war won't change that inevitable conclusion.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:10:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you misunderstand the law... (0+ / 0-)

        We are founded under the philosophy of NATURAL LAW. We institute government to protect the inalienable rights endowed by natural law.

        Edicts eminating from an entity posing as a legitimate government is not law. Let that sink in.

        Now, what makes a government legitimate? A legitimate government is one which protects our natural rights. When "government" becomes injurious of that purpose, it is no longer legitimate, thus no longer government. It cannot issue "law" but only edicts.

        Thus, refusing to obey these edicts are not unlawful acts, but duty.

        In our Constitution, we LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, not the people. When "government" exceeds those limits, it is trying to exercise ARBITRARY power, as it is usurping power not allowed it by the sovereign power of the country - the people.

        "whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence." John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Governement

        Right To Revolution

        •  well now, Pete you've drifted into (4+ / 0-)

          standard LP territory with your quoting "NATURAL LAW" and Locke would be best tempered by quoting /citing some Tom Paine, otherwise many folks here will think you a 'bagger sympathizer

          Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

          by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:38:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not to mention, (5+ / 0-)

            Pete misses three important points.

            1) Natural law is not an immutable reality; it is a theory of law, the way that natural selection is a theory of evolution, and gravity is a theory of motion.  However, unlike natural selection and gravity, there is a lot of evidence showing the inadequacy of the theory of natural law, including a ton of recent research showing that morality (and hence law) is a product of human cognition--- it doesn't exist outside of our minds.  

            2) Even if there was such a thing as natural law, there is no guarantee that the laws we write correspond to it.  Just because the Founding Fathers held it to be self-evident that all men are created equal doesn't mean there is a natural law to that effect.  For all we know, there is a natural law that men are not created equal, and our "self-evident" laws contravene them.  Indeed, for most of human history, equality was not a virtue.  Look at the Founding Fathers themselves--- they certainly didn't live up to that "natural law", did they? Writing tracts about equality by day, beating and raping their human chattel by night.  Restricting voting and citizenship, and so on.  

            The point is--- they weren't necessarily right.  And they, being men of the Enlightenment, knew this perfectly well.  That's why they wrote the constitution as forming a "more perfect union".  If the work was complete, they would have written just "perfect union".  As products of the Enlightenment, they would be aghast at you worshipping their work, instead of applying the fruits of the 230 years of experience gained here and in other countries.

            3)  "whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power,"

            There is not a single gun law in the country that does these things.  The Founding Fathers may have feared a distant federal dictator, but 230 years of experience gained here and in other countries shows that stable, lasting democracies don't devolve into dictatorships, and that they can disarm themselves peacefully, and let the darkness and overwhelming fear in their souls drift away.   Unwarranted and unhealthy fear will drag down your soul, Pete.  Let it go.
             

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:55:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Some are welcoming you to DKos (6+ / 0-)

      I won't be joining them.

      I do not think we need to have nicey-nicey conversations with clearly right-wing trolls to prove that we have a big tent.

      If you believe that gun control in the US will result in Civll War, please take your rantings elsewhere.

      This does not further any conversation. It only derails the conversations that we should be having.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:52:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zero Diary Fuck-Tard Troll nt (0+ / 0-)

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:04:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Cartoon Peril

      The 2nd Amendment was a guarantee to slave states that their militias would be there to protect them against an invasion by the federal government to emancipate their slaves.

      It was necessary in order to persuade those states to ratify the Constitution, even though there were numerous other obnoxious compromises such as the 3/5, the Senate and Electoral College, and the 10th Amendment, because of the spreading abolitionist fever and because of the establishment in the Constitution of a standing federal army.

      But since the Civil War, it has been completely obsolete and useless. just like the 3/5 Compromise. Only in the 20th Century was it applied to the question of gun control, in spite of its clear connection to militias (through the phrases “well-regulated militia”, taken from the Articles of Confederation, and the phrase “bear arms”, used at least since the 17th Century primarily to refer to military action).

      The 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with personal defense (or with hunting, for that matter).

    •  You need to read (4+ / 0-)

      The book is "Private Guns, Public Health," by David Hemenway.  He effectively dispels all of the nonsense you just typed.  

  •  Funny. (9+ / 0-)

    If Chuck sold beer to kids out his back door, he'd be shut down in a second.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:17:54 AM PST

    •  I grew up in the 14300 block of Wabash (0+ / 0-)

      3 blocks east of Indiana Ave.  30 years ago, Grandma's Goodies, a candy store was located next to Chuck's current location.  

      Doing the Google street view, I accidentally went into the alleyway between Wabash & Michigan and it really hit home how close this place was when I recognized our red-stained garage as picture came into focus.  

      Chicago city limit is just blocks away to the north.

  •  Small correction needed: chuck's gun shop is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Georgia Logothetis, lyvwyr101

    In Riverdale, not Riverside.  

    Dementia, you better treat me good. ~Conor Oberst "Slowly (Oh So Slowly)"

    by NotActingNaive on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:18:44 AM PST

  •  Will we ever learn the lesson... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, FrankRose, bnk, Hangpilot, Dogs are fuzzy

    that prohibition -- be it of booze, drugs, or guns -- never works?

    Only when we honestly address the underlying issues of why people feel the need to be armed -- economic disparity, familial breakdown, the inability of some to see a future because they don't believe they have one -- will we make headway.

    We had a "national framework" for alcohol probition in the 1920s and '30s. We have a national framework today when it comes to drugs.

    Why would a national framework on guns work any better than those massive failures did?

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:20:19 AM PST

    •  Of course it would work (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChurchofBruce, cocinero, coquiero

      If you do not allow any grandfathering in of banned guns (Nancy Lanza's AR15 was banned under CT law but hers was grandfathered in) and you make the penalties for owning, say, assault weapons and high capacity mags very high (expensive in terms of money and jail time that is mandatory) it can work.
      Of course bad guys are going to still get and use guns but easy access to WMDs is not healthy for our society and everybody but the most ardent gun-fanatic sees it.  Australia could be a good example for the US to follow.  Their example is not perfect but the steps they took reduced their gun violence #s.

      Booze and Drugs (at least some drugs) were not created for the purpose of killing (although of course when used in excess they can and do kill).  Guns are killing machines, especially the military style civilian assault rifles that have become so popular in recent years.

      •  Actually... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dogs are fuzzy, annieli

        The 5.56 military round is designed to wound. The rounds used by deer hunters are designed to kill. In fact, it's written into most laws that rounds used for hunting game must deform and cause massive trauma.

        The AR is widely vilified despite virtually never being used for criminal purposes.

        If I was banning guns my list would be a lot more effective than yours. And that's not meant as offense. It's just that gun owners and veterans who are left leaning should be leveraged for this. If they aren't you'll get the absurdity of the old AWB which did nothing and was based on aesthetics.

    •  Guns are not booze and drugs (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, coquiero, a2nite, Recall

      I can think of four reasons off the top of my head.  Further reflection should reveal more.

      1) Demand for alcohol and drugs is driven by addiction.  Demand for guns is not.  Any thoughts of a widespread black market for guns for ordinary people are unrealistic.  

      2) Alcohol and drugs are not expensive at the endpoint of sale.  Most guns already cost more than an iPad, and being illegal will send their price through the roof.  Ordinary folks will be priced out of whatever gun market there might be, and since they don't have an addiction to override that price, they won't be robbing people for the money to pay it.

      3) It is easy to hide one's use of alcohol and drugs.  Good luck using a gun without the neighbors hearing it.  You can drink or do drugs with friends together in a small room.  Can't do guns together without a little more space.  The more space you need, the harder it is to hide.  

      4) Alcohol and drug use do plummet with prohibition.  Even 80 years after the end of Prohibition, Americans still only drink a third of what we were drinking before the Volstead Act.  Likewise, gun use would plummet, and so would gun violence.  Which would be great progress.  

      Comparing guns to alcohol and drugs is facile and fallacious.  The NRA and its parroters need new excuses.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:24:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  NRA parroter? Please. (0+ / 0-)

        I don't own a gun. I've never owned a gun. I have no desire to own a gun.

        I'm just being realistic, and I'll respectfully disagree with you.

        You mentioned "ordinary people" a few times in your comment, and I think that's part of the problem.

        It's not "ordinary people" I worry about having guns. It's criminals. And criminals will always find a way to get their hands on whatever it is they need, whether it's legal or not.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:03:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ordinary people are the ones to worry about (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, BenderRodriguez, Recall

          Especially those who are close to you.  The person most likely to do you wrong, from murder to theft to molesting your kids, is someone you already know and trust. Family, friends, acquaintances, social leaders... it's not a coincidence that every murder investigation starts with the family and friends: Most of the time, that's who did it.

          If you want to fear "criminals" out there, go for it.  But you should be quaking in your boots about the people in your life.  Otherwise, you're missing the forest for the trees.

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:07:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a fair point but a different argument. (0+ / 0-)

            My belief is that if we want to solve this problem, we have to attack the underlying reasons that lead to gun violence.

            I also believe that criminals will always find a way to circumvent the law.

            We can respectfully disagree, but please understand, though, that calling me an "NRA parroter" is risible.

            Feel free to peruse any comment I've ever made on this site. If you find even one instance of me defending the NRA, I'll send you a six-pack of your favorite beer.

            How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

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

            [ Parent ]

      •  Point number 2 is especially applicable (0+ / 0-)

        to this diary. Most of the perpetrators (and victims) in the Chicago epidemic are low-income youths.

  •  It's tough (5+ / 0-)

    While I am a gun owner, I believe in all of the commonsense solutions that are currently being discussed. But the issue does indeed get cloudy when an anti-gun region is bordered by areas where it is very easy to purchase a gun.

    Where gun control works is when it is universally applied and, ideally, before the area is awash in guns.

    Chicago fails on both counts.

    One of the things that I struggle with is the guaranteed fact that law abiding citizens in Chicago do not have access to handguns while criminals have a short drive out of town. That's insanity to me.

    I live in DC. Gun control here is a joke. PA, MD, and VA (especially PA) have very open gun laws. Nothing DC can do will lower the crime rate in regards to gun laws. Crime is down due to abortion and gentrification.

    Violence is a symptom of poverty. Stakeholders don't commit crime. I just wish the focus of our national conversation was on mental health and poverty rather than arguing over 9 or 10 or 11 rounds in a magazine being the magical evil number.

    •  I wish the nat'l conversation was also about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Churchill, ChurchofBruce

      how poorly regulated our "militia" are these days.

      •  I understand that, but... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, noway2, AaronInSanDiego

        While I agree that the 2A was largely protecting a state's right to not rely on a federalized army, it's also absurd to think that the FF were against open gun ownership. As such, I find discussions based on 1780s legalese to be unproductive.

        What is productive is identifying the initial conditions that lead to violent impulses (whether the end result is a handgun or a hammer.) I'd rather live in a moral society rather than an ersatz moral society where the criminals are merely impotent.

        Gun control loses traction when the shock of a tragedy wears off and people realize that the vast majority of gun violence is either black on black crime or part of the larger "war on drugs".

        Create a pathway from poverty to prosperity and end draconian drug laws an

        •  The NRA would have given the Founders (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ItsSimpleSimon, cocinero

          an F rating!

          We’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

          For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.  (From The Secret History of Guns in the Atlantic.  I don't know how to do links!)

          From the book "Gunfight": Early Americans denied the right to gun ownership even to law-abiding people if they failed a political test of loyalty to the Revolution. The founders also declared that free white men were members of the militia and, as such, were forced to appear with their guns at public ‘musters’ where government officials would inspect the weapons and register them on public rolls. When pressing public necessity demanded it, the founding fathers were also willing to impress guns from law abiding citizens, even if those citizens were left without guns to defend themselves from a criminal attack."

        •  I always find amusing responses that boil down to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChurchofBruce

          saying "there is only one aspect of this issue I'm willing to talk about."

          Such exclusionary argumentation is, you might agree, unproductive.

          It is, in truth exactly the same tactic the NRA wants to use to distract us from having a real and comprehensive debate.

          Part of that broad discussion should be to determine what, today, we really take "well regulated" and "militia" to mean. Otherwise, if that language is to be taken out of the realm of discussion (because it is archaic?) then it is time to amend the second amendment itself.

          •  The Second Amendment is not a major problem. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight

            Given the limitations the court wrote in the Heller and McDonald decisions, it seems likely that all of the President's proposals to reduce gun violence would be likely to be found constitutional, even with the current conservative court.

            Of course, it would be better if one or two of the conservative activist justices were replaced and Heller and McDonald were overturned. The four dissenters said that the 2nd was all about state militia, not restrictions on civilian gun ownership which have been found constitutional for decades.

      •  A Well Regulated Militia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hangpilot

        In terms of the language when the 2nd Amendment was penned, "well regulated" meant "properly functioning", not "regulated by laws" as the term might mean today.

        Even today, the militia is not the National Guard or any other state controlled body. It is the body of the people of an age and capability to fight, defined in the US Code as all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-45. In light of the fact that the Defense Department is opening combat arms to women, that should likely be updated.

        I am from Missouri, neighbor to Illinois in which Chicago is located (for the geographically challenged). In our state, as in many others, we have by state statute, an "unorganized militia", which codifies this fact at a state level. Private individuals are encouraged to train in small, local units and the state provides opportunities for more formal training as well.

        I recommend folks step out of the echo chamber from time to time and research whether those with opposing views might have the law, SCOTUS decisions, and history on their side.

        •  Echo chamber or not (5+ / 0-)

          The current conservative SCOTUS has undone 100 years of precedent in many areas, not the least of which is the 2nd Amendment, expanding individual rights to 'bear arms' to a point that it is endangering the rest of the population rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Before the 1970s, The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.  (Jeffrey Toobin did a good article on this in the NYer.  I don't know how to add links on daily/kos or I'd do it.)

          So called "Originalists" mock the idea of a living Constitution (until they want to change the law to suit their corporate agendas)  Toobin demonstrates that there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment since the NRA took a hard right turn in the late 1970s, dragging politicians and jurists with them.

          And nearly every state now has a constitution that clearly protects an individual's right to own stacks of assault weapons unattached to militia service.

        •  That is simply incorrect. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ItsSimpleSimon, emelyn, wsexson, louisev

          When the Constitution was written, there were a host of militia laws in the states that most certainly did regulate firearms. These laws go all the way back to the earliest colonial period and did not change significantly until well into the 19th century. Even in as old a set of regulation as the ones issued by the United Colonies of New England in 1643 (and adopted by the member colonies) specified the acceptable types of arms militia soldiers could use and regulated their upkeep and transfer. It is completely a-historical to insist that "a well-regulated militia" does not include regulations (and restrictions) on firearms.

          This has been a topic I've researched for many years, mostly because my specialty as an historian is colonial military and strategic policy. What you've parroted is a standard canard of the right-wing "militia" movement, but it is counter to what militias actually were in our history.

          Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

          by Stwriley on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:34:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What "well regulated militia" meant in 1789 (0+ / 0-)

          should instruct us today about as completely as their contemporaneous definition of a person.

          Things change, and you may be living through a watershed moment - the beginning of the modernization of the 2nd amendment.

        •  indiana constitution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          louisev

          article 12. militia. all persons over 17 are part of the militia. active or inactive. cos don't have to carry guns. i'm 68 and legally still in the militia. people should  read their state constitutions, surprising what they will find in there.

          WELCOME to kos. i'm am what kos himself called "a libertarian democrat". billy

    •  Funny thing is, here in PA... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChurchofBruce, cocinero

      city dwellers like me often see ourselves at the wrong end of the same problem. It is certainly much easier to buy a gun in PA, but even here it's not so easy to get a concealed carry permit, for instance. Yet we have plenty of people running around the state who have such permits from other states, including a fair number who were denied permits here (and PA is a "shall issue" state, meaning it's not exactly difficult to get one.) Florida is notorious for this, since a PA resident can get one there without even the background checking we do and then enjoy full reciprocity that allows them to concealed carry back in PA.

      It's not just gun sales that cause problems across city and state borders, it's all manner of gun laws, even the most reasonable and practical ones that are designed simply to keep guns out of the hands of people who are demonstrably a public danger if they get one.

      Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

      by Stwriley on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:10:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on the county (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stwriley

        Where in PA do you live? In Berks County is takes about 20 minutes to get a CC permit. Walk up, fill out the form, pay the money, wait for the background check, get your photo taken, and be on your way.

        Other counties require more paperwork but it isn't like Berks is out in the boondocks.

        In much of PA a person can go from being a non-gun owner to purchasing a gun and getting a concealed carry permit in 2-3 hours.

        PA, for a northeastern state, as very open gun laws.

        •  Philadelphia (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BornAgainPagan

          Which helps explain my own attitude in regards to the easy access to guns; we have a gun problem too, just not quite as bad as Chicago. My point was that, easy as it is in PA, even we have problems with the cross-border transfer of guns and the attempt to regulate even something as serious as concealed carry permits. I'm not saying we're a bastion of strict gun control (far from it), just that these problems are even more widespread than what residents of Chicago or NYC might think.

          Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

          by Stwriley on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:40:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Stwriley

            But PA is where people go to buy guns and not be bothered. Far easier than neighboring states. With Philly, people drive out to Cabela's on 78/61. People from Jersey, as well.

            It certainly is an issue but I think it's one that will be around for a long time. If residents of other areas are staunchly pro-gun then I think we need to focus on things that we can change.

            That's not to say I'm against legislation that would make it harder for someone to become a defacto gun runner.

  •  This week-LIVE BLOG (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:01 AM PST

  •  why is Carly Fiorina there? (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:39:20 AM PST

  •  R-Winger, If we ban spoons would that stop obesity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Faito

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:40:06 AM PST

    •  nah, the spork is the comestible assault weapon (0+ / 0-)

      The AK-47 of utensils

      Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

      by annieli on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:55:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  idiot Carly Fiorino, Gov jobs aren't important (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, cocinero

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:41:10 AM PST

  •  Krugman: Public sector jobs, laid off teachers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, cocinero

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:41:38 AM PST

  •  A Couple Years Ago, Same Crime Rate As Houston (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Churchill, FrankRose, gosoxataboy

    This increase in violence was not gradual - it was sudden.  When this happened in DC it was small gangs fighting over turf to sell drugs.  One of the reasons it trailed off was so many of them died.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:07 AM PST

  •  Krugman: public sectior jobs aren't Bureaucrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:09 AM PST

  •  When Doug Wilder ran for Governor... (3+ / 0-)

    ...he proposed the "frightening" notion of limiting handgun purchases to 1 a month for individuals. It was a rather mild attempt to deal with straw purchases as it was found that of handguns used in crime in NYC, (IIRC) over 1/4 were originally purchased legally in Virginia gun shops.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:27 AM PST

  •  Krugman:hundreds of thousands of laid-off teachers (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:42:48 AM PST

  •  Krugman: 2006 # of gov jobs, then 6% unemploy (0+ / 0-)

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:45:16 AM PST

  •  idiot-Michele I-Hate-Teachers Rhee is up next (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up! CLIMATE CHANGE: The era of procrastination, half-measures & delays is coming to an end; In its place we are entering a period of consequences!

    by Churchill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:51:45 AM PST

  •  I'm in favor of gun control. However, we need to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    not forget that teens will be drawn to guns for the same reason they're drawn to smoking cigarettes or risky sex or crazy driving.
    In order to change the dynamic between Chicago teens and guns, we're going to have to do more than reduce the availibilty of guns outside Chicago.
    Having said that, we do need to get this federal stuff done asap.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:53:04 AM PST

    •  The guns are a tool and gun violence is a symptom (0+ / 0-)

      if you take away the guns you will still have the violence.  Gun restrictions on law abiding citizens won't even touch the problem.

      •  this is just stupid (4+ / 0-)

        if you take the tools away you go a long way to solve the problem.

        Using my free speech while I still have it. http://www.ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

        by ebgill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:47:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is an NRA talking point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero
        Gun restrictions on law abiding citizens won't even touch the problem
        There are way too many guns afloat in our society with no restrictions on who has them, who sells them to whom, etc.

        Part of the solution is to treat guns like cars. Sales are registered, and each gun has a chain of ownership. Background checks will be universal.
        This will reduce the violence.
        It won't be all of the solution, but it will be part of it.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:59:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just because the NRA takes a stance on something (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't mean it isn't true or valid.  Illinois already has some of the strictest "control" in the nation including registration and an FOID program,  and has the biggest problem with violence.  Are the two related?  Obviously.  Are they cause and effect?  Maybe, maybe not.  

          For the longest time we've heard one excuse after another about how the problem with Chicago's guns is the lax laws everywhere else.  The data is now out and this is demonstrably false, nor does it hold up anywhere else.  Chicago is a crooked city, run by crooked politicians whose stranglehold on the rest of the state's gun rights has finally been broken.  Now they will have to join the rest of the nation in the 21st century.

          I also anticipate that after all these control pushes fail that we will start to see a number of legal challenges against existing control measures.  Not to mention, the longer this drags on the greater the fallout in the 2014 elections.  I know my decisions have been influenced, I am sure other peoples have too.

  •  For those who don't know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Georgia Logothetis

    what this statement means...

    and I live on the north side of Chicago in a working-class neighborhood
    ... is that she lives in one of the safer neighborhoods.

    I don't know which one Georgia lives in but this map of  violence crime in Chicago by neighborhood from 2006 shows the disparity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:27:49 AM PST

    •  Good context (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White

      I'm in the West Ridge/Rogers Park border area. That would be the green ones.

      Gunfire isn't frequent, but I definitely hear it too often for my comfort and have seen reports of gun-related crimes (non-shooting) taking place on or near my block on a more frequent basis. During the day it's a lovely picturesque urban neighborhood with tree-lined streets and families at the park. At night, it's a different matter.

      •  I know the area (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Georgia Logothetis

        though it has been a decade since I've been there and that only for a visit. My sister used to live there... actually at different times I think both my sisters lived there. And the last time I visited Chicago I visited one in Rogers Park right by the lake.

        The area is... safer... but hardly safe in absolute terms. Me, I lived in that little bit of green down by all that red. Again, vastly safer then the red even being that close to it, but not exactly safe if you weren't smart about what you did and when.

        Two things really jump put at me... one, that even as bad as the numbers are in Chicago today (over 500 gun deaths last year) it is only a little over half what it was when I was a kid growing up there.

        And two, the position of Illinois as a whole relative to the rest of the states on this Mother Jones chart I just saw on facebook that correlates gun ownership percentage by state to gun deaths per 100,000.

        https://www.facebook.com/...

        "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

        by Andrew C White on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:25:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  much has to do with the perspective of time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew C White

          LA had over 1000 murders/yr in the early 90s. Violence has dropped everywhere for years (now LA is down to around 300), but recently headed back up in Chicago - probably largely because of gang turf wars. But in overall terms, violence is still on a downtrend nationally.

  •  really, laws will make it all better? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, bnk

    Please read this article carefully. Notice the repeated mention of how strict the gun laws are in Chicago. Also notice the amount of gun crimes. With all the strict gun laws, Chicago has not seen a reduction in gun crime. Why?  BECAUSE LAWS DO NOT STOP CRIMINALS. Go ahead and pass more gun laws. Crime will increase. Why? BECAUSE POLICE DO NOT STOP CRIME, THEY RESPOND TO THE AFTERMATH. If laws work then why do we have so many illegal drugs, illegal immigrants, bank fraud, Wall Street fraud, banking and loan scandal, etc? I read about congress men, Mayors, Governors, POLICE, teachers, and preacher breaking laws every day. So If these people at the top of our society do not respect the laws they why would a criminal? Do you really think that if we took away ALL guns in this nation, ALL, even the police that we would solve gun violence? Look at japan, nationwide ban on guns, still gun violence and death. Hmmm. criminals are able to obtain grenades and rocket launchers and they have never been legal for the public sale (we used to have a guy come in to the factory where I work when I was 20, he had every military weapon that could fit in a trunk for sale and not available for sale to the public anywhere. He claimed they came from a private security company he worked for named BLACKWATER but who knows. All I know is he had them and gangsters bought them for pennies). Go ahead and pass more laws that prevent me from protecting myself from criminals. But what I really think is going on is not the concern for the people of this country but the protection of the government from the people. PS. If you really want gun violence to go down then hold people responsible for their actions, ALL the people that break the law. No exceptions for PRIEST, COMGRESS, POLICE or single mothers that are working so hard. NO EXCEPTION, YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME. If the children see the leaders of this nation (police, priests, congress) break laws and not be held accountable, what do you think they will do. Children do not learn what we TEACH…they learn what we SHOW.

    •  That's why we should legalize rape (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, Recall

      I mean, criminals just ignore the shit right out of that law, right?  

      (yes I am being sarcastic)

      Japan has a dozen gun deaths a year in a population of 130 million.  If we had their rate, we'd have 30 a year.  Instead, we have 30,000.  Plus 70,000 wounded.  

      Get a grip on reality, then bring something productive to the debate, instead of the same old tired excuses.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:30:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Legalize rape? (0+ / 0-)

        Legalize rape? WOW way to play on emotions. If you are suggesting rape as analogy then I say pass more rape laws and see if reduces the numbers of rapes. If you are implying that I am for lax gun laws then you have made a huge jump from what I have indicated is the problem. ENFORCMENT AND ACCOUNABILITY from the top down (can you say “accidental discharge” Dick Chaney?). As for your Japan argument, you prove the point about gun laws being ineffective. Even with a country wide ban (with rare exception) criminals on an island country can still get them and still commit crime with them. Yakuza much? http://www.trutv.com/...

        “Yakuza also satisfy the desire of would-be gun owners in Japan, where guns of all kinds are prohibited. Yakuza members themselves are the prime market for firearms, and they favor the sleekest automatic handguns from Europe and America, often trading drugs for weapons. The yakuza specialize in the production and sales of methamphetamine (given the frenetic pace and competitive atmosphere of Japanese society, speed is the national drug of choice) and the yakuza frequently use it to barter with Western arms suppliers.”

  •  97% of gun homicides are committed with pistols, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, Faito, bnk, Samulayo

    not semi-automatic rifles with extended magazines, yet I see little in the proposed gun legislation that would keep young black men in Chicago from killing each other with Saturday Night Specials.   That is a travesty that Dick Durbin needs to explain before he has my respect on gun laws.

    Truly effective enforcement of existing gun laws is presently a joke.  Until that changes, we are fooling ourselves that the proposed feel good legislation will change anything in Chicago.  

    PS to  the NRA:   The Second Amendment is a "shall issue" law, but only to possess, not for concealed carry.  

    Many hands make light work, but light hearts make heavy work the lightest of all.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:32:42 AM PST

    •  Never confuse practical with political (0+ / 0-)

      It would be very practical to reduce gun violence by banning handguns and also removing them from circulation.  However, it would not be politically smart.  That is why you don't hear anything.  
       

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:32:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interstate Gun Trafficking and Federalism (6+ / 0-)

    I've wondered why there isn't a more contentious/adversarial relationship between mayors of high-gun crime cities and states with the most permissive, lax gun regulation.  The state of Illinois has imposed some pretty restrictive gun laws on its citizens, and that absolutely comes with a political burden for the legislators who supported those bills.  It'd certainly piss me off if, after going through all the hassle of passing strong gun laws, the streets of my city were nevertheless flooded with weapons illegally imported from states with less conscientious (read: more cowardly) policy makers.

    I'd like to see a bill that allows federal law enforcement agencies to actively investigate and prosecute the trafficking of prohibited firearms from states where they're legal to states where they're illegal.  At the least, give states such as CA, IL, MA, and so forth the use of federal law enforcement resources to bolster their efforts to keep prohibited firearms out of their states.  If a citizen of Georgia makes a habit out of buying AR-15s in Columbus, jumping on the interstate, and selling them in a Chicago suburb, that should be a federal crime.

    There's no constitutional reason why the federal government has to be a neutral bystander in watching the residents (and governments) of one state aggressively flaunt a neighboring state's laws.

    •  Senators Mark Kirk and Kirsten Gillibrand (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gosoxataboy, Soldier Scholar

      introduced a bill about three weeks ago to make gun trafficking a federal crime. Sen. Gillibrand posted a diary about it.

      •  Word (0+ / 0-)

        I'm all in!  I thought it had been part of VP Biden's package but, upon closer reading, it really wasn't.  Thanks for pointing me to SEN Gillibrand's bill.

        This could evolve into another variation on the ever-vexing states rights issue: What legal/political recourse do states have to prevent other states from enabling/facilitating crimes within their borders?  I'm pretty certain (again, please correct me) we've established that states can sue each other for neglecting  to regulate environmental pollutants affecting a neighboring state.  Wouldn't it follow that there'd be a similar remedy for a state that fails to control advanced, lethal weaponry flowing out of its borders?

        Lawyers?  Law students?  You've got to be here.

  •  And in related news... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wolf10, snazzzybird

    Rahm Emanuel has closed half of the City of Chicago's neighborhood mental health clinics.  There are now only six and CTA is having a fare increase.  Mothers who were patients at the mental health clinics because of PTSD after a child was killed have been arrested for protesting the closings, denied medicine by the CPD (actually the CPD will take them to a hospital to get their prescription if they agree to pay the ER costs), and held in handcuffs and shackles.

    If it takes more than just gun control laws, tell me how Emanuel's policy makes any sense.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:48:36 AM PST

    •  While I agree that the closings are terrible (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego, cocinero

      The gun law redirection to mental illness serves to make it harder and less likely for a mentally ill person to seek treatment. It creates a witch hunt against people less likely to commit gun crimes on average. http://www.nytimes.com/... The proportion of mentally ill people in gun crimes is pretty low despite the hype. It's a red herring designed to take the focus off of guns and burden a population already overburdened, but with few advocates. I don't recommend allowing the gun advocates to shift the blame so easily.

      Using my free speech while I still have it. http://www.ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

      by ebgill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:03:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It depends on how the law is written (0+ / 0-)

        The whole idea of background checks depends on (1) the details being checked, (2) the relevance of those details to gun crimes (that is the tricky one), and (3) the way that they are applied in practice and enforced through audits.

        The issue of mental health clinics is unrelated to background checks.  Better mental health care for relatives of victims of gun violence and for certain behavioral issues can change the community culture in a way that reduces gun violence.  And crime in general.

        You are exactly on target about the tendency of the law enforcement community to think that there is such a thing as predictive policing.  On a community basis, there might be predictive techniques, but on an individual basis, that is a dangerous fallacy that leads to a direct collision with the Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately, we are seeing this tendency in law enforcement when it comes to terrorist suspects--profiling, manufactured evidence, and entrapment (or worse, phonying up an incident).

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:29:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Unfortunately, that whole "holistic" thing is just (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, nominalize, cocinero

    too damned difficult, too damned expensive: economic desperation, crap schools, no jobs, no future, a criminogenic drugs policy, police that are often hostile and/or corrupt not to mention, more recently, understaffed, etc., etc., etc.

    Hell, many Democrats have followed or enabled Republicans in turning their backs on these folks and that is the greater and the root cause of the violent crimes being discussed at the moment.

    White kids get shot down and suddenly the victims in the ghettos get noticed. Hooray!

    The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

    by Wolf10 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:56:13 AM PST

  •  Wildcard (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Georgia Logothetis, cocinero

    The wildcard here is whether Kelly inherits the Jackson GOTV organization or if her campaign becomes the congressional district version of Migel Del Valle for Mayor. He did great, getting 100% of the vote of those who voted for him, right?

    NRA fills the Internet with stories about how gun laws don't work in the US based on some pretty weak attempts. Doesn't make it true. Gun laws done right work: Australia: http://stream.aljazeera.com/...
    Here's more on Australia and other countries: http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    One problem identified in Chicago and New York is that the guns come from elsewhere. Sen. Kirk and Gillibrand are proposing gun trafficking legislation to try and stop that http://www.youtube.com/...

    but ignoring legal assault weapons and large magazines, it's not clear this legislation is strong enough. I cannot understand why Gillibrand would work to water down Feinstein's ban that she also supports, and go along with Kirk who likes to straddle the fence and stay close to his party, but oh, yes, he's supposed to be a better man now. https://www.facebook.com/...

    Using my free speech while I still have it. http://www.ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/

    by ebgill on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:56:29 AM PST

  •  You know what drives me nuts? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ebgill, cocinero

    When you look on CNN or some other news site's message board and the guntards are misquoting the Founders to defend their right to stockpile assault weapons and mountains of ammo with no background check and no registration and no wait period, because they are sure the 2nd Amendment is about the Right of Insurrection (which would make the Constitution a self-destructing artifact):

    George Washington never said "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

    Thomas Jefferson never said "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

    Thomas Jefferson never said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

    Benjamin Franklin never said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

    Oh and Hitler never said: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

  •  Use Hawaii as the model instead of Chicago (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize, cocinero

    Hawaii has strict gun laws and ranks 50th in gun violence. Strict gun laws work in Hawaii because guns can't so easily be brought into the state, as guns can be in Chicago.

    We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. -Pres. Obama, 1/21/13

    by SoCalSal on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:11:07 AM PST

  •  Great write-up. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, schnecke21

    Until something is done nationally, gun laws by city or even by state are lip service.

    someone from Chicago, I was VERY happy to read this. Great write-up.

  •  Gun deaths are down since pre-gun laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gosoxataboy

    In the early 1990s there were as many as 900 gun-related deaths in Chicago, and as the century turned the norm was 700.  In the early part of the century they fell to the 400s, but it is still down significantly from the previous highs.

    500 gun deaths a year is an abomination, but Chicago's gun laws and policing have brought the number significantly down.  For some reason that's never reported, not even in sympathetic outlets.

  •  If you are a member at nytimes.com (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize

    or if you have some other way to access old newspaper databases, you might be interested in replicating a casual research project I did yesterday. Go into their search function and enter the phrase ”bear arms”, then display the results in ascending order chronologically, starting from the oldest possible date (1851).

    Among other interesting things,* you will see some of the earliest 2nd Amendment related arguments against gun control, some of them in Chicago (but none before 1900). You will also see that in the early 20th Century, the arguments against gun control were virtually identical to those being made today. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    ___
    * My purpose was to see how often this phrase was used outside of a military context. I found no examples before 1900. It was shortly after that year that the phrase “right to bear arms” appeared as such. Most common 19th Century example: swearing not to bear arms against the United States as part of post-rebellion loyalty oaths; second most common: referring to bearing arms in the lead up to or during the Civil War. I did find one single 19th Century example, without looking for it, of “to bear a gun”, in the context of the more general “bear arms”; this indicates that the more general meaning of “to bear” can sometimes be applied to weaponry, although it is relatively rare. (And it is always amusing to find “bear arms” being used in its heraldic sense.)

  •  Correlation and Causation (0+ / 0-)

    While this is a wonderfully emotive argument, I would like to introduce a bit of logic.

    The theme seems to be "if we reduce the amount of guns, we reduce the amount of gun crime". Seems reasonable. But let's look at the statistics, realizing that while correlation does no prove causation, "correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to make causal inferences with reasonable confidence"

    from: http://core.ecu.edu/...

    So, while correlation does not prove causation, to prove causation, showing correlation is necessary. How does this relate to the argument that if we decreased the amount of available guns, that gun crime would decrease? We would naturally look at the statistics of gun crime vice the amount of gun sales in society.

    Problem for this argument is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. Particularly since Mr. Obama took office in 2009, gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed, while FBI statistics show us that violent crime rates have dropped. This is easy to research - just search "more gun, less crime" - you will find a plethora of articles and research on the subject.

    If you want to increase gun violence, try to ban - and especially effectively - try to confiscate - guns. Then there will be violence like most Americans who have never been in combat have never experienced.

    I dont go so far as to say more guns = less crimes, though the statistics support this conclusion. I do say if you say less guns would equal less crime, that statistics are stacked against your argument.

    So let's be a bit less emotive and a bit more logical, shall we?

    •  Seriously (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cocinero, Recall, matx

      You say "Correlation does not equal causation", then you provide an example where correlation equals causation.  Do you listen to yourself?

      Here's another correlation: Violent crime drops in line with the gun ownership rate.  Fewer people with guns = less violent crime.  States with lower rates have less violent crime.  This makes sense: Notice how gun bans don't actually ban guns, they ban people from purchasing guns.  Fewer people with them... less violent crime.

      Now, that's just another correlation.  Although it does match with correlations in other countries, where fewer people with guns = less violent crime.  So it's better than the one you propose.

      Still, the most well-established explanation for the drop in crime is environmental:  Lead pollution.  Extensive and repeated research (A good summary is here has conclusively linked lead molecules in the atmosphere, mostly from leaded gasoline exhaust, to the rise in crime about 15 years after its introduction during WW2, to the fall in crime that started about 15 years after it started being phased out in the '70's.  Other factors have been ruled out, and the effect is clear in every country and city that's been tested.

      Because what these other correlations can't explain (including yours) is the truly important question:  Why crime went up in the first place.  Lead pollution explains it.  It also explains why cities got it worse than the country (more cars = more pollution), and suggest that it's no coincidence that countries still with leaded gasoline--- Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, North Korea, and Burma--- are not exactly peaceful friendly spots.

      Add to a drop in lead pollution: added policing, stricter prison terms, and greater moral sensibility, and you get much lower crime rates in spite of there being more guns in circulation.  We can only dream of how much more peaceful our country would be without the guns that embolden people to confrontation.

      Correlative comparisons to the number of guns out there are facile and fallacious.  You need to find new excuses.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:48:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, no, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize

        Anyone who disagrees with Pete is "emotive" and non-logical.  Maybe I've only recently started paying attention to this, but it's amazing how often this canard arises among pro-gun types.  I'm thinking it's just projection.

        ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

        by TFinSF on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:06:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps I did not make myself clear (0+ / 0-)

        Correlation does not PROVE causation, but correlation is necessary in order to prove causation.

        Gun ownership is at ever increasing levels, but gun crimes are steadily DROPPING. Therefore, the correlation is that MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME, not the opposite.

        Therefore the argument that reducing the amount of guns would equal a reduction in crime has no correlation in the statistics, a necessity to argue causation.

        Is this more clear?

        •  Meanwhile, in the real world.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TFinSF, Recall

          (Second chart:) Gun ownership down, except just recently, when the death rate also stopped going down.

          You realize that a Gish Gallop only works when people are speaking face-to-face?  

          On the internet there are these things called "facts" that make it easy to verify people's claims.  And since everything we write is recorded as is, pulling the wool over people's eyes is very difficult.  Hence your frustration here.

          I suggest you stick to TV or radio.

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:04:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think we can look at Brazil (0+ / 0-)

    People, like the NRA, say that "Brazil has strict gun laws but one of the highest murder rates by guns in the world."

    That may be true BUT and there is a BIG BUT here:

    There are these places in Brazil called "Shanty Towns" where no police go.  No, these Shanty Towns have their own "police forces" that are all about gangs and turf wars.

    It is a 2-class society with a small middle-class and we here in America are headed in that direction if we don't stop the top.

    Anyhow, these stats on Chicago to me simply mirror what is going on in Brazil, where guns are illegal except where the police dare not go.  And those are the places where the thousands of people are killed each year.  The poorest of the poor in Brazil and with no way out.

    Sound familiar?  Then let's do something to prevent it from happening here.

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:10:46 AM PST

    •  Guns are actually quite legal in Brazil (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, the people voted in a 2005 referendum not to ban them.  

      The numbers on guns in Brazil

      You just have to register them when you buy them, is all.  And  you point out the problem--- lawless zones left to fester without the benefit of the rule of law.  

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:51:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Somebody please (0+ / 0-)

    tell me why a mandatory 20 year sentence for ANY gun crime will not be a terrific deterrent to these thugs.

  •  What works: cutting shootings by 41-73% (0+ / 0-)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(organization)

    Of course it's possible to do that in parallel with gun interdiction. Which is more cost effective?

  •  Its the economy, stupids & the price we are paying (2+ / 0-)

    Thanks to Georgia L. for this post - this is my 1st comment (sorry for the length) as a Chicago native (south and north-side) and pretty mouthy gun restrictionist (why below), I've spend the past month fending off FA-fetishists/the stupids on FB (where I yak most) who try (and fail - pffft) to pillory my long-held stance with "the Chicago".
    What often gets lost/is never addressed in "the Chicago", is the 2008-9+ collapse (for a lot of people in my neighborhood/s - just the latest collapse) really hit the drug trade hard-and if you think its not a part of the overall economy (urban, suburban and rural), then perhaps you'd be interested in an over-priced, stripped of plumbing condo on a block of abandoned tear-downs-cash only courtesy of BoFA. When the best customers, the weekend warriors who had decent jobs, cut back, then the turf battles started.  
    Add in 20-30 years of gentrification pushing people out of affordable housing/neighborhoods, 1,000 fewer cops (despite Next-Mayor-For-Life Black Swan's press parties), a job future for too many that smells a lot like "well you can always make levis in prison", and the cheap, cheap guns of all kinds available/for sale-no questions asked, no limits, no records, no consequences, but lots of profits (except for the victims and their families/friends) in the suburbs and states that ring Chicago and IL make the now daily slaughter all too predictable, even as the numbers get numbing.
    But it wasn't always like this in Chicago - when I was a kid, in a poor, but not really-really poor, neighborhood, I don't recall ever hearing gun-fire - when there was a ban on importing/selling cheap guns.  Now, for the past 20 years or so, I know what semi-automatic shots sound like and can pretty much tell how far off and what direction (should be sad, the world over, to know this, shouldn't it?).
    So, now to the why I'm a gun restrictionist - on most things, l I believe the needs/welfare of the many outweigh the selfish, delusional desires of the few - but here's where it gets personal, but not complete - why I want our national stupidity on guns to end (in memory/tribute):
    -my late aunt - for helping raise the 3 orphaned kids of a friend who's cop husband shot her and then himself - while the 3 kids were in the next room.
    -my mother and father - for hiding and destroying the shot guns another aunt snuck away from her abusive husband.
    -for K (a college friend) - mental health, employment problems, and guns (7 I recall) and a stand-off with police that actually ended without any injury - he got mental health help then - where are those services now?
    -my gun-owning college friends (all from rural areas) who mocked my anti-gun stance - until their "secured" guns were all stolen one Thanksgiving break - wonder where those guns wound up?
    -for another relative who in her grief had to clean up the mess from her son's suicide - walls, carpets, floors - they don't often show the clean-up in movies, do they?
    -for the friend of a friend, who has a permanent dent in his leg from a drive-by/run-by in park - teaming with kids playing - on a sunny day.
    -for the young man with the pretty, long hair who's name I didn't catch, who chatted me up when I moved into an apt in Humboldt Park - he was shot in the face the next week.
    -for J. also HBP (not really a good man but he wanted to change according to someone who knew) who was shot down on our block (semi-automatic - that awful sound) - I walked past the blood the next morning on my way to work.
    -for another relative - mourning/picking up the family pieces for her nephew - mental health, employment problems, lots of guns (again), and meth - not of the mixy - in a suicidal stand-off with local, rural police.
    -for me - for knowing what semi-automatic gun fire sounds like at 5:15am - and where its coming from and what direction it seems to be going - and wondering if I'll later see another person from my neighborhood turned into a terrible statistic on the news.

     ,
    t

  •  shabbedolle, put in a few paragraph breaks, and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Georgia Logothetis, matx

    you have an excellent stand-alone diary there.

    Great writing.

  •  Missing the root cause? (0+ / 0-)

    Instead of putting a band aid on a arterial bleed, why not address the root cause - the war on drugs?

  •  "If Gingrich knew how logic works" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    LOL.

    The only thing he knows is how selling books works.

    Jon Husted is a dick.

    by anastasia p on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:58:10 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site