Chicago: 12 hours, 1 neighborhood, 7 murders

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I've said it before, I'll reiterate. The United States doesn't have a gun violence problem, it has a gang violence problem. I've seen studies that estimate around 80% of homicides involving a fire arm are gang related. Although Fred will disagree, the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners are not the problem. POS criminals with guns are.

[jmccracky]

(03-31-2017, 10:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've said it before, I'll reiterate. The United States doesn't have a gun violence problem, it has a gang violence problem. I've seen studies that estimate around 80% of homicides involving a fire arm are gang related. Although Fred will disagree, the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners are not the problem. POS criminals with guns are.

I could not agree more. I am a dirty liberal, but this makes so much sense to me. I actually side with most conservatives when it comes to guns and gang violence. I just don't like the NRA.

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-31-2017, 10:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've said it before, I'll reiterate.  The United States doesn't have a gun violence problem, it has a gang violence problem.  I've seen studies that estimate around 80% of homicides involving a fire arm are gang related.  Although Fred will disagree, the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners are not the problem.  POS criminals with guns are.

I would go further than that. 

We have an idiot problem. How many kids are killed every year because some dumb ass adult has a loaded weapon picked up by a kid who pulls the trigger. Happens to cops, moms, firearms instructors etc..

[xxlt]

(03-31-2017, 08:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is there proof of causation, there? I'm just curious because there has been come disagreement over the effectiveness of the practice. Those graphs don't provide a convincing argument for causation

I would also like to see the results with a stop-and-frisk implementation that was not deemed unconstitutional.

Like a Bengals team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on a sunny Autumn Sunday afternoon, once again you have snatched the words from my mouth.

[xxlt]

(03-31-2017, 11:29 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: I could not agree more. I am a dirty liberal, but this makes so much sense to me. I actually side with most conservatives when it comes to guns and gang violence. I just don't like the NRA.

S'up dirty liberal. Was about to agree with you but then my damn need to know kicked in...

"The number of gang-related homicides reported from 2007 to 2012 is displayed by area type and population size.

• From 2007 through 2012, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.
• The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
• Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012."
  

Note the bold, underlined, italicized part above. Others, less inclined to reality based opinion formation, can ignore it. It, and the verbiage before and after came from a report you may find interesting that is located here:
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

[xxlt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.d488449e6040

Hmm. Seems people aren't blowing each others brains out at a record clip, gang members or not.

From the article:

"This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift..."

And the article title? "We've had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here's Why."

[GMDino]

Four people (and a dog) shot dead on the same day...

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/news-photo-gallery/scenes-from-a-tragedy-quadruple-shooting-leaves-canton-neighborhood-in-shock-mourning

...in Canton OH.

That's just murder by gun.  I don't know if there are others.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 02:12 AM)xxlt Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?utm_term=.d488449e6040

Hmm. Seems people aren't blowing each others brains out at a record clip, gang members or not.

From the article:

"This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift..."

And the article title? "We've had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here's Why."

This is hardly a new topic or news anyone who frequents here is not aware of.  I've brought this exact topic up several times to show how new gun control laws are not only pointless, they're unnecessary.  In the last decade or so gun ownership has exploded while at the same time violent crime and murder continued an overall decline.  Targeting hard core recidivists with long (forever) prison sentences helps reduce gun violence.  Telling me I can't have a AR with a functional mag release doesn't do shit.

Politicians like to appear to be doing something, it's far easier than actually doing something and the idiots lap it up.  See, I passed gun control legislation to protect you!  I did something!  Like Martin Sheen asked in the beginning of The Departed, "Do you want to be a cop or do you want to appear to be a cop?".  The same question could be asked of politicians, do you want to make a difference or appear to make a difference.  The vast majority choose the latter every time, knowingly or otherwise.

[GMDino]

(03-31-2017, 08:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Show me any state that says they lose their liberty against unreasonable searches once they have completed serving their time. After all, that is the right we are talking about being violated in stop-and-frisk situations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 12:38 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would go further than that. 

We have an idiot problem. How many kids are killed every year because some dumb ass adult has a loaded weapon picked up by a kid who pulls the trigger. Happens to cops, moms, firearms instructors etc..

When you're a person who is familiar, comfortable with and trained in using firearms your biggest enemy is complacency.  You can never allow yourself to get so confident that you aren't constantly thinking about basic safety.  I had my moment, nothing nearly as egregious as in that video, and it was all it took for me to never get so relaxed at the range again.  I was teaching some friends to shoot, one of them brought some really crappy ammo and had a failure to fire.  He wasn't comfortable clearing it so I safely took the weapon, removed the magazine and turned uprange to clear the round.  The extractor had partially torn the rim of the round off so getting the round out was a delicate affair.  I looked up and my friend had moved directly in front of me, I was totally flagging him.  He had moved so he could see what I was doing so he could do it for himself in the future.  Now, I didn't have my finger anywhere near the trigger, but the fact that I had gotten so fixated on safely removing the round that I had stopped paying attention to where my friend was standing gave me chills.  I've never come close to making a mistake like that again.  Oh, so the story makes sense we were at an outdoor ranger were you get your own large bay, which is how he was able to move around.

[fredtoast]

(03-31-2017, 07:20 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: These Chicago politicians like to keep harping about gun violence, but are they instituting any "stop and frisk" policies, like the one that was quite effective in New York?

Suspending all constitutional protection would indeed reduce crime.

Are you willing to give all of that up.  allow th3 police unlimited power of search and seizure on all citizens at any time?

You don't think their might be some problems arise if there was no Constitional protection against this sort of stuff?

[fredtoast]

(03-31-2017, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Stop and frisk and unreasonable search are not the same and SCOTUS has ruled as such. 

They also found that about 90% of the "stop and frisk" stops in New York were improper because there was no reasonable suspiscion. 90% of the people who were stopped were completely innocent.

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is hardly a new topic or news anyone who frequents here is not aware of.  I've brought this exact topic up several times to show how new gun control laws are not only pointless, they're unnecessary.  In the last decade or so gun ownership has exploded while at the same time violent crime and murder continued an overall decline.  Targeting hard core recidivists with long (forever) prison sentences helps reduce gun violence.  Telling me I can't have a AR with a functional mag release doesn't do shit.

Politicians like to appear to be doing something, it's far easier than actually doing something and the idiots lap it up.  See, I passed gun control legislation to protect you!  I did something!  Like Martin Sheen asked in the beginning of The Departed, "Do you want to be a cop or do you want to appear to be a cop?".  The same question could be asked of politicians, do you want to make a difference or appear to make a difference.  The vast majority choose the latter every time, knowingly or otherwise.

Good points. They also call into question the furor/hysteria over the OP and the gun and gang violence hyped in this thread.

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 11:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When you're a person who is familiar, comfortable with and trained in using firearms your biggest enemy is complacency.  You can never allow yourself to get so confident that you aren't constantly thinking about basic safety.  I had my moment, nothing nearly as egregious as in that video, and it was all it took for me to never get so relaxed at the range again.  I was teaching some friends to shoot, one of them brought some really crappy ammo and had a failure to fire.  He wasn't comfortable clearing it so I safely took the weapon, removed the magazine and turned uprange to clear the round.  The extractor had partially torn the rim of the round off so getting the round out was a delicate affair.  I looked up and my friend had moved directly in front of me, I was totally flagging him.  He had moved so he could see what I was doing so he could do it for himself in the future.  Now, I didn't have my finger anywhere near the trigger, but the fact that I had gotten so fixated on safely removing the round that I had stopped paying attention to where my friend was standing gave me chills.  I've never come close to making a mistake like that again.  Oh, so the story makes sense we were at an outdoor ranger were you get your own large bay, which is how he was able to move around.

It would appear your friend lost focus too. Curiosity literally almost killed that "cat." Glad your friend was not injured. Good anecdote.

This anecdoete does make me wonder though, when a gun in the hands of a highly skilled and trained professional nearly killed or injured a friend, why so many ******* think guns are dangerous. I wonder why that is? Anyone else have any thoughts about why ******* think guns are dangerous?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-01-2017, 11:31 AM)xxlt Wrote: It would appear your friend lost focus too. Curiosity literally almost killed that "cat." Glad your friend was not injured. Good anecdote.

This anecdoete does make me wonder though, when a gun in the hands of a highly skilled and trained professional nearly killed or injured a friend, why so many ******* think guns are dangerous. I wonder why that is? Anyone else have any thoughts about why ******* think guns are dangerous?

It didn't nearly kill him, not even close.  Not flagging someone is so ingrained in you that it happening by accident is a huge deal.  No one was almost killed, he couldn't have been killed.  Of course guns are dangerous, but they don't go off magically or of their own accord. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-01-2017, 11:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Suspending all constitutional protection would indeed reduce crime.

Are you willing to give all of that up.  allow th3 police unlimited power of search and seizure on all citizens at any time?

You don't think their might be some problems arise if there was no Constitional protection against this sort of stuff?

Not at all.  The stop and frisk was intended toward convicted felons, whom aren't supposed to be in possession of a firearm.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2017, 11:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They also found that about 90% of the "stop and frisk" stops in New York were improper because there was no reasonable suspiscion. 90% of the people who were stopped were completely innocent.

I've seen numbers closer to 85%, but we'll go with your 90% and my reply is "Good". That means that 10-15% were not "completely innocent". If the practice is not deemed unconstitutional (I see folks here trying hard to push for that; however, that is not the case) then why does it matter is 99% of the people that are stopped are completely innocent. if it gets 1%.

Now if folks are being stopped without reasonable suspicion then you and others have room to complain about the practice. But I'm not seeing proof of that; you're simply showing that a trained professionals reasonable suspicion didn't panned out enough to facilitate an arrest. Perhaps one day we can have magicians be LEOs that will have 100% success rate on their suspicion.  


If a sudden rash of crimes committed by an extremely handsome man occurred in my area and the cops stopped me to ask a question, I wouldn't blame the cop I'd blame the other extremely handsome man that committed the crime. I do believe I have shared the story about how I was once stopped because of a bank robbery here. I fit the general description and was in the area. Hell I was on a Motorcycle, not sure where they thought I put the loot.

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It didn't nearly kill him, not even close.  Not flagging someone is so ingrained in you that it happening by accident is a huge deal.  No one was almost killed, he couldn't have been killed.  Of course guns are dangerous, but they don't go off magically or of their own accord. 

Sorry for exaggerating the gravity of your anecdote.

I guess if there was no danger to your friend it is unclear why this "not flagging someone" is such a big deal. I mean, not doing it being so important suggests there is some inherent danger there, and clearly there wasn't per your response above. Not being a firearms expert I may never understand this, but I am trying to. I feel ignorant, and while it is a familiar feeling, it is one I have tried my whole life to overcome with information when I felt it. Maybe someone else can explain away my ignorance. I would be grateful.

I am surprised to see you line up with pansy nation and say guns are dangerous though. I am also surprised to see you say they don't magically go off. Someone posted a video of one in this very thread that magically went off, and I heard a firearms sales rep once talking about the Glock pistols that had become so popular with police departments about 15-20 years ago and how they kept magically going off. I think they were using the phrase, "Accidental discharge," but there were stories about it happening all over the U.S. in police locker rooms, cruisers, homes, and on the street. It sure seemed magical when I heard all these accounts of guns "just going off" and doing so "for no reason." Again, maybe someone who is expert can shed some light here on how guns are dangerous but don't just magically go off. I am eager to learn more, especially since our nation's various gun debates don't seem to be subsiding and I like to be an informed debate watcher.

[xxlt]

Reading up more on the gangs, guns, and guts - no wait it was God, guns, and guts - that made America great.

Anyone think this: http://homedefensegun.net/four-rules-gun-safety/ is a reputable source?

If so I am really confused. It says things like this:

"Most gun accidents are caused by thinking a weapon was empty when it wasn’t... If you treat it as being able to go off at any time, you will not injure anyone if it goes off unexpectedly. I have seen several times on a range when someone thought a weapon was empty and squeezed the trigger as the last step of clearing it and having an accidental discharge."

and this:

"Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

If you don’t point your gun at something, you can’t shoot it, plain and simple.

In the military, we used the term of flagging someone with a weapon. By this we meant pointing, even incidentally the muzzle at someone. You have to be always conscious of where your gun is pointing.

If you follow Rule #1, you have to be prepared for the weapon to go off at any time. I have had rounds cook off in the barrel after firing a tremendous amount of rounds on the range. If the weapon had not been pointed in a safe direction, it could have injured or killed someone
"

But I was just told that a gun could not go off unexpectedly, and that an incident of flagging someone did not have the potential to injure or kill someone. I am really confused.

Then it goes on to say:

"Unless a weapon malfunctions, it will not fire. If you keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to engage, most likely the gun will not go off."

What the heck does that mean? It is almost like it is saying a gun could just malfunction and go off. Guns don't just magically fire, or so I have been told.

Concluding remarks include these:

"You never, ever, ever want to injure or kill someone innocently in the line of fire...If you establish the right mindset and drill it into yourself you will greatly lessen the chance that an innocent person and even yourself might be injured."

Wait, if you do everything right the best you can hope for is you lessen the chance of killing or injuring an innocent, including yourself??

I am starting think the ******* might be underselling, and not overselling, the dangers of guns.

[xxlt]

(04-01-2017, 01:16 PM)xxlt Wrote: Reading up more on the gangs, guns, and guts - no wait it was God, guns, and guts - that made America great.

Anyone think this:  http://homedefensegun.net/four-rules-gun-safety/ is a reputable source?

If so I am really confused. It says things like this:

"Most gun accidents are caused by thinking a weapon was empty when it wasn’t... If you treat it as being able to go off at any time, you will not injure anyone if it goes off unexpectedly. I have seen several times on a range when someone thought a weapon was empty and squeezed the trigger as the last step of clearing it and having an accidental discharge."

and this:

"Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

If you don’t point your gun at something, you can’t shoot it, plain and simple.

In the military, we used the term of flagging someone with a weapon. By this we meant pointing, even incidentally the muzzle at someone.  You have to be always conscious of where your gun is pointing.

If you follow Rule #1, you have to be prepared for the weapon to go off at any time.  I have had rounds cook off in the barrel after firing a tremendous amount of rounds on the range.  If the weapon had not been pointed in a safe direction, it could have injured or killed someone
"

But I was just told that a gun could not go off unexpectedly, and that an incident of flagging someone did not have the potential to injure or kill someone. I am really confused.

Then it goes on to say:

"Unless a weapon malfunctions, it will not fire.  If you keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to engage, most likely the gun will not go off."

What the heck does that mean? It is almost like it is saying a gun could just malfunction and go off. Guns don't just magically fire, or so I have been told.

Concluding remarks include these:

"You never, ever, ever want to injure or kill someone innocently in the line of fire...If you establish the right mindset and drill it into yourself you will greatly lessen the chance that an innocent person and even yourself might be injured."

Wait, if you do everything right the best you can hope for is you lessen the chance of killing or injuring an innocent, including yourself??

I am starting think the ******* might be underselling, and not overselling, the dangers of guns.

Well that is fascinating. The word pansy is legal, but the plural form of the flower is verboten!

I gotta brush up on my slang! Who knew the young kids had come up with another dirty word? I wonder if it might have made Carlin's updated list? Eight dirty words you can't say on TV or write on the interwebs...