• #4
    "What does the carnage in Chicago say about firearms possession?"

    That allowing criminals to be the only ones armed is a bad idea?
  • #13
    There wasn't a soul on these streets who weren't criminals. The good guys with guns aren't walking the streets of these inner city projects looking to be a hero or save someone from "the bad guy". These are ALL bad guys, ALL gang related shootings. There isn't a legal gun owner for miles so more or less gun control doesn't matter in cases like this.
  • #23

    You're right about that...if the truth were known most gun related violence IS gang related...even in the small city where I come from (Evansville, IN) we had reports of 500 shots fired last month and my nephew, a city police officer, said nearly all were related to gang activity.
  • #39
    @PayThatCEO Gangs are most powerful and dangerous when someone on the inside is helping/encouraging them... or profiting from them.
  • #41
    @PayThat CEO

    My hometown of Columbia, Mo is home to Missouri University, Stevens College and Columbia College in addition to hosting 4 huge hospitals.
    So Columbia with a population is considered an upscale community which often rates as one of the best small cities in U.S. to live and work within. Our public schools are A rated and my old high school has a presidential rating.
    That said Columbia has the highest rate per capita of gun violence within Missouri including St. Louis and Kansas City but when gun violence is analyzed, 95% is two warring drug gangs fighting over turf for drug sales which for the most part cater to college kids.

    I pack but don't go looking for fun fights, gun fights are dangerous and cost a lot of money if shooting is questionable.

    That said Illinois has passed conceal carry and slowly Illinois citizens are unraveling the system for conceal carry permits.

    I have often shared, succesful conceal carry is all about situational awareness and never placing one's self in harms way.
    If I never have to draw a weapon I will have been the benefactor of much training and fortunate enough that trouble never came looking for me.

    If you need carry logic reinforced, visit a website known as .
    There's a section devoted to sourced media accounts where guns made the difference.

    Obama commissioned a study which backfired. He wanted to know how many defensive gun use was put to work in U.S.
    Results were staggering enough Obama administration shelved without a word.
  • R Load more replies

  • #161
    Yeah, instead we should just make getting guns EASIER in this area so these people can kill each other with legal weapons.

    Great plan!
  • #166
    @AceLuby If they are doing it now illegally, what makes you think they will bother to do it legally when it takes effort (background checks, fingerprints, etc.)? These guys don't want their fingerprints in the database.
  • R Load more replies

  • #56
    I know, I know bring in Bloomberg he will show them. Give up your guns all you criminals or I will take away the 40oz sodas.
  • #79
    Maybe that veteran community organizer can bring his friend the who's an Attorney General with him. I'm sure they can find a storefront in the south side of Chicago where they can set up shop. Oh and being they like gun control, they need to leave all their heat packing friends behind.
  • #98
    Chicago is a machine city. They control all the politics of Ill. The people need Florida's la and then they will be able to do what the government won't.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    The cowardly criminals usually don't shoot at people who they think may be armed and could fight back. This just proves that "gun free zones" or restricted gun ownership/carry don't work. It has been tried all over the country and in each case where gun control is strongest, the shootings are worse. Wake up America, and armed citizen is the answer to senseless shootings!
  • #162
    So if these people killed each other with legal guns it would make the situation better? Or are you suggesting people walk into the south side of Chicago and take out the gangs themselves with their legal weapons?
  • #177
    @AceLuby I'm suggesting that if people are able to defend themselves, i.e., a level playing field, that there would be less killing. Just because you have a gun and a CC permit doesn't make it smart to go looking for trouble.
  • #164
    Now there's an actual idea. The gun laws aren't the problem, they obviously aren't working though because nobody wants to stop crime in the area. The police don't want to lose officers, the crooked cops don't want to lose their payoffs, and they don't want to lose their ability to drug sweep a large area to make themselves look good in a very short period of time. If you investigate a single case for a month and nab a murderer, but the guy next to you does a single sweep and arrests 30 for small amounts of random drugs the chief is going to ask the guy who got the murderer what took him so long.

    The problem is the local cops and screwed up justice system and has very little to do with gun laws.
  • #24
    Go back 20 years, before all the gun laws, and see how many were killed on a regular basis.

    If the answer is: "about the same" then perhaps the laws have nothing to do with it.
    If the answer is: "more" then perhaps the laws are even working

    The only answer that could prove that gun laws are a bad idea, is if you can prove that the rate of deaths by shootings have systematically increased since the laws have been enacted, which they haven't.
  • #33
    @boombatic there will not be any such research,those against guns do not want that out.

    look back to when anyone of age could walk in buy and walk out with guns and ammo for them,i know in my area of ca we did not see the shooting we do now.
  • #51
    @boombatic The only answer is to rid Chicago of two things, drug laws and political corruption which feeds on the Federal money to help fight high crime.
  • #52
    It would be interesting to know the voting records of the people involved in shootings AND if hey are involved in subsidized living programs. OhOh, is gang shootings covered under Obama Ware care?
  • #53
    @Hillofbeans The answer is a focus on returning to the traditional nuclear and maybe even extended family. Thanks to welfare we now have generations of men that have grown up without mature adult role models. This is what you get, a faux representation of masculinity.
  • R Load more replies

  • #34
    Appears the majority of the folks who have guns are gang bangers and criminals. However, there was also a Chicago incident this weekend that a legal gun owner with a carry permit defended himself and friends how come that story is not also posted? As always we only see the stories of misuse and illegal ownership.
  • #167
    Because if a legal gun owner did that it would show that the gun laws are working since they aren't preventing the 'good guys' from obtaining weapons. It goes completely against the mantra that 'gun laws don't work' or 'gun laws restrict your freedom to protect yourself'.

    What never gets talked about is why the people we pay as taxpayers (police, SWAT, state police, feds) aren't doing their jobs and enforcing the laws since most of these guns are not legal and should be off the street. No law in the world is going to work if nobody enforces it.
  • #12
    This isn't a gun control issue. It isn't a political issue. It's a societal issue. Anyone who thinks it can't happen in THEIR neighborhood has their head in the sand, unless you keep moving and staying just one step ahead of the fault line.

    I've watched areas in 3 different states where I've lived deteriorate over time. I never dreamed the little backwoods town I moved into 20 years ago would now have a huge drug and crime problem. It's a sad fact of life in America. We are becoming a 3rd world country. Chicago is the tip of the iceberg. Unless and until we can solve our societal problems, gun laws (or any law, for that matter) will come to mean nothing.
  • #16
    In this case I agree with you in part. Armed citizens deter, but don't eliminate senseless shootings. Politics does play a large part in gun control and therefore whether citizens can be armed. You are correct that drugs and societal issues exacerbate the problem.
  • #121
    Our nation of lazyboomers have ruined the country because we have let the politicians waste our money/resources and sell out our jobs/ livelihood to other countries for their self gain. Plus all the legal drugs that seem to be everywhere for the street thugs but not available to people that really need them.
    Until there is a change in the corrupt government and law enforcement the show will stay the same or get worse.
  • #122
    @SAS86 Send it the swat teams and military armed police to take control of the gangs and their weapons. The more deterrent we have the better our chances of ridding the diseases from the streets.
  • R Load more replies

  • #38
    "You have to do what you think is right."

    Apparently, Mayor Emanuel believes it's right to keep the criminals armed and the citizenry helpless.

    A vote for Rahm is a vote for victimization!
  • #30
    It shows that gun control efforts have very little effect in Chicago which has been known for having very tough gun laws. Once again criminals don't pay any attention to laws only law biding citizens/victims do.
  • #171
    Which shows that more enforcement is needed. Whether these people kill each other with legal or illegal guns doesn't really matter, does it?
  • #179
    @AceLuby The reason for all the murders in Chicago is well known. It is a black city with more gangs than almost anywhere else and the gang bangers don't care about laws or the people that enforce laws. So I guess your right there are no answers and it doesn't really matter to anyone except the people that live there.
  • #228

    "The reason for all the murders in Chicago is well known."

    Studies have shown that the core reason for gangs is poverty. Chicago has the writing on the wall that says going bankrupt soon.

    Someone's skin color doesn't make them more prone nor less prone to violence but desperation does and desperation is color blind.
  • #168
    Well... seeing as these are illegal guns it seems that the laws are keeping legal guns out of these people's hands. It does beg the question as to why the police aren't enforcing laws on illegal weapons though.
  • #67
    This is a prime example of the statement "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and proof of the theory!
  • #169
    People w/ illegal guns killing other people w/ illegal guns doesn't prove anything except that they aren't getting legal guns... which is what the law is supposed to do.

    The real question is why aren't police doing anything about the number of illegal guns and the people who have them?
  • #194
    The point is that if gun laws in the city were NOT so strict, someone with a LEGAL gun might have put a stop to the outlaw(s) with ILLEGAL guns. The police can NOT be everywhere all the time.
  • #208
    @AceLuby "The real question is why aren't police doing anything about the number of illegal guns and the people who have them? " Two reasons they can get hurt and they are getting paid to look elsewhere. There is no earthly reason to go after a druggie, but there is plenty of reason to use a no knock warrant to raid a home of a citizen who only wants to protect his family and home.
  • #75
    Explain that my friends of the left and anti CC permit holders ?LOL guess the strictest gun laws dont really work do they?
  • #45
    Apparently the only people who don't realize that gun control won't stop these shootings is liberal extremists/Politix staff.
  • #170
    Of course gun control won't stop these shootings when the police won't enforce laws on illegal guns.
  • #204
    @AceLuby I don't agree Ace. I can't see a cop giving an UZI back to some wrong pant size wearing hooligan.

    "Sir. I'm issuing you a citation for not having seat belts...And here's your UZI back."


    I think it's much more likely that laws don't regulate unlawful people.
  • #14
    Limiting the poll choices to more or less gun control is an extremely elementary interpretation of the causes of gun violence in Chicago.

    I've lived in, and for the last 5 years, around Chicago the majority of my life.@PolitixDavid, you minimize the violence by limiting the cause to gun control. I'll put it you, and everyone else here, simply: It doesn't matter if Chicago had the strictest gun laws or issued a gun to every gun eligible resident in the city, the murder rate will stay the same. Why? The shootings and killings are localized in the poorer, gang-infested areas of the city. That is why the murder rate hasn't miraculously dropped since concealed carry took effect last January.
    For those of you who do not live in Chicago, the city has a gang problem(has had one for decades). It is these gang members who are doing the shootings and, here is the most important point, they commit these crimes IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS.
    So, if I live in the Edison Park neighborhood of Chicago and I'm carrying, how does that exactly stop a gangbanger in Englewood, Austin, or Back of the Yards neighborhood from committing a murder?
    The people in those neighborhoods either cannot afford a firearm or cannot legally attain one.
  • #127
    As we saw in another thread here over this same weekend a legal CHL carrier stopped at least one of these murderers from killing him and his companions.
    I would lay money on the fact that the people that were shot, with the exception of the one I mentioned, were not shot with legally obtained guns.
  • #54
    These laws are hindering law-abiding citizens their constitutional, as well as human, rights to self-defense.

    It's just logical; person A will have a hell of a lot harder time carrying out a crime, or wanting to, if they can't tell if person B is carrying a gun or not. If the gun is clearly visible to the criminal, there's a good chance that the owner knows how to use it and the criminal will want to dodge that bullet and not mess with them.
  • #241
    LOL... Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger (mind you, a Republican) said “…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
  • #243

    The Purpose of the Militia Clause

    "Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))

    If you still disagree, then I ask you; for whom does the Bill of Rights guarantee their Rights?
  • #244
    @Threeper301 We are talking about one Amendment. An Amendment that in incorrectly used, understood, and over-used. I merely posted a statement from someone, someone that was the Chief Justice. The Second Amendment does not mandate that an individual has a right to own whatever weapon they chose, but to own guns. It wasn't until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that there was a protection to individual right to possess and carry firearms. In fact, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution."

    Justice John Paul Stevens suggested a modification, "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

    The truth is that gun control does work, but it is not the absolute answer. It must, as I have stated, be a part of a multi-faceted approach.

    It is a shame that we live in a time that all too many people are too worried about their precious guns to be open to help the communities.
  • #245
    @mkberry85 I take it that you follow the words of Janet Reno to heart:

    "Waiting periods is only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

    And obviously, you didn't bother to read what was said in the above Supreme Court case. The reason that they granted that man his gun rights in that case was because they realized, rightly so, that the beginning clause of the Amendment is similar to a preamble for it. As in, it explains its intended purpose. A militia cannot exist without the people's guaranteed right to bear arms.

    If only the police or the Guard are allowed to bear, that's no different than having a constant, standing army amongst the People; something the Founders had just abolished through a bloody war fought only a few years before drafting that Amendment.

    And now, today, we just want to crap all over it?! And what of the Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Just because that isn't in the Constitution, that does not make those words insignificant.

    3 points to make with that: 1) the Declaration was here first, 2) it was that document that MADE the nation, and finally 3) bearing arms goes along with that Inalienable Right to Life. If you have that Right, endowed by your Creator (as you understand him/her), then are you not also endowed with the Right to DEFEND your life?
  • #246
    @Threeper301 If you would actually stop and read and understand what one states, it would help a lot. I never stated that individuals should not be allowed to own gun. It is individuals such as yourself that automatically have the false belief that those who advocate gun control are against guns or against privatized gun ownership.

    "Bearing arms goes along with that Inalienable Right to Life." Seriously? Ridiculous.

    Further, the quote that you provided from Reno was not a quote directly by her, but actually a affidavit by Fred Diamond, stating that was what Reno stated. Reno has actually denied making this statement numerous times, and others have denied that she made the statement as well.

    Regardless of what the facts are, gun lovers such as yourself will also have the belief that we are after your guns. I only wish that one day people would actually value intelligence, rationality, and the truth over their beloved guns.
  • R Load more replies

  • #46
    Criminals don't give a shit about the law. Honest, law abiding citizens are the true victims because they are forbidden by law from possession on their person, or flat out the ability to protect themselves. Then they have no way with which to protect themselves, or their loved ones. What are they going to do? Wait for the police..? Then it'll be far too late.. and they're not there to protect them anyway...they protect the interests of the city...They'll be waiting on the Medical Examiner with body bags and homicide detectives...
  • R Load more comments...