Welcome to Chicago!
TheeOSU
FUCK IT!
Sanctuary city, a safe haven. Liberal policies and some of the country's strictest gun controls at work!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-vi…
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-vi…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
25 comments
I swear sometimes the science minded people forget that a core tenet of science is that it is falsifiable.
That's my sermon for the day.
Reducing the number of guns in circulation and making harder to get guns does reduce crime.
It is foolish to blame our societies problems on the poor, or on the homeless, or on racial minorities.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Jill Stein wanted people to be able to send kids to college, and she wanted to restore the Bill Clinton 2% extra tax on high incomes to be able to create more good jobs.
Sounds like some on this board would rather solve social problems just by passing out guns.
SJG
Yeah we have Chicago as a testament to the accuracy of your statement! LOL
I totally agree with that. The problem is all of the gun laws just affect law abiding citizens and are ignored by criminals who are the main sector of our society that shouldn't own guns. Criminals obtain them through theft or other illegal means.
Also many of those criminals are not first time offenders. They are out on the streets because of 2nd 3rd and 4th chances. Our flawed justice system that continues to release career criminals or fails to rehab first timers is a bigger reason for the ills of our society than legal gun owners are or ever will be.
If it's just gang against gang violence, like what I heard the other day, then you could hope that they all kill each other and that we evetually have peace. However if the gangs keep recruiting more into their gangs, the cycle of violence will keep going on. I really do not know hardly anything about the situation so I'm merely speculating, just like some others on here in my opinion. Obviously whoever has been in power hasn't fixed things.
@sharkhunter: and Tim Kane would be way worse than Hillary.
I don't own a gun because I have never lived or worked in a place where I felt I was in danger. However, if I did, I would own a gun and would have no hesitation to use it. Any "half measure" would render a gun a greater danger to me than not having one.
I legally carry a pistol most of the time--not because I feel I'm in danger but because I want to be prepared for unexpected occurrences. I would rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not have it.
I went about my business, or pleasure. Interestingly, very few places made any attempt to frisk people entering. I went all over Chicago with a 9mm holstered inside my belt and never encountered any problems. Whether in Maggiano's at Clark and Grand, Wriggly Field, the Admiral Theater (way north), Arnie's (Harvey is not way north), or around Midway, no one ever asked or attempted to check whether I was carrying, and I never needed to use my weapon. But like jackslash, " I would rather have my gun and not need it than need it and not have it." (Note, this was before 9/11 and all the crazy "can't profile so search grandma" rules)
As for all the Second Amendment hype, any form of restriction on a citizen's ability to own and carry firearms (without prior - specific and individual - adjudication of just cause) is a violation of the Second. The "militia argument is bullshit. The very first elected Congress passed a law REQUIRING every adult male citizen to own and maintain a military grade firearm (the "Militia Act of 1792"} which also specified that pretty much everyone WAS in the militia. The current version of that law divides the militia into "organized" (the Guard and Reserves) and "unorganized" (just about everyone else who is not on active duty, in jail, over age, or disabled - 10 US Code section 311 and others). In fact, over 100 years of court decisions on the current "militia law" establish that anyone excluded (like women who are not in the Guard, or the disabled, or men over 45) can "volunteer" for the unorganized militia, but do not have to assert they are volunteering unless and until the militia is "called."
Since the "militia" referenced in the Second Amendment really IS everybody, any argument that the Second Amendment applies only to militia members is pretty stupid.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ex-c…
The police, which are civilian, paid, armed enforcers still have free-will. If they are modifying their patrol, investigation, and apprehension tactics that is them exercising free-will and not something the politicians are *doing* to them.
Look, both sides: (1) the public and (2) the armed enforcers, both need to learn how to behave and act around one another.
The public needs a refresher in police protocol and their rights (constitutional, state, and local) as citizens. The police can perform their stops and investigations, the public needs to know that the armed enforcers, will assume you are armed and dangerous, so keep you hands visible and be polite, compliant, and firm. Identify yourself, let the armed enforcers know if you are carrying (CCW) so they can disarm you prior to questioning, and yes, you should be able to legally get your weapon back. But also do not consent to searches, and KNOW HOW to properly decline consent to searches. Do offer any extra information than what is legally required. Often the paid enforcers will try to trick you into giving up your constitutional rights, meaning, they will pose a request, but they will state it like they are giving a direct order. Do not give you rights. Don't self incriminate. Do not consent to searches. Ask Am I being detained, or am I free to go. Follow-up any grievances with your lawyer and the court system, as designed.
It is VERY possible for people in the scope of their daily activities or extra information to law enforcement, that some of it could very possibly unintentionally incriminate them of some crime. This is why people object to detainment and questioning by these armed enforcers, may of whom are good people going a thankless job, but a small minority of these paid enforcers are "on a power trip." And that is a real problem.
Now the police force, under additional scrutiny, are feeling the say way the public feels. On any given day, one or more of their actions or one or more of their statements can get them, the civilian armed enforcers, in trouble with some law or bit of police procedure. My advice for them? Welcome to fucking real life. You have a very heard job. The public has it hard, too. Man up and deal with it. We need to come to an agreement on police protocol and we can both understand and agree to and abide by.
If the police aren't patrolling, aren't investigating, aren't apprehending, then that is on them and not the politicians. It is personal responsibility for them to do their sworn jobs. Also if the public is committing crimes, then that is on them, and they, too, should stop the blame game. Break the cycle.
-Dominic
How to Refuse Police Searches, by Flex Your Rights (2 minutes, 8 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVX6NIP…
10 Rules for Dealing with Police (Full-Length), by Flex Your rights (38 minutes, 4 seconds)
https://youtu.be/s4nQ_mFJV4I
How to Refuse a Police Search, by Flex Your Rights (45 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIe…
^^^ Tonight's homework for everyone in the 'hood.
--
FATS System Trainer:
Pasadena Police Department FATS - FireArm Training Simulator, by Pasadena Police Department (3 minutes, 34 seconds)
https://youtu.be/HNzR4I1VGPk
Activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios, by Fox 10 Phoenix (4 minutes, 58 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3…
^^^ Tomorrow's homework for everyone in the 'hood. Compliance plus we need to see your hands. Understand the armed enforcers are trained using the FBI's FATS system. -- At least I understand it was a federally developed system, courtesy of militarized Federal investigative bureau.
--
Sun Tsu. Know they enemy and know thyself. FATS system. Your constitutional rights. Compliance and hands. It's not hard. :)
-Dominic
Looking at the Chicago stats for gun violence and homicides, I saw commentary from both sides. (1) Chicago is a very large and populous place, so, of course, there might be a large number of gun related homicides. (2) Per capita, since both numbers are very large, on a per-capita basis, Chicago is better than some areas (Detroit and St. Louis, were cited as examples of higher-per-capita rates).
But if Chicago is that big, then it is not fair to assume it is homogeneous nor should we say, well, per-one-thousand-people, etc., it's is not that bad. The gun homicides aren't evenly distributed per 1000 people, they are probably concentrated in gang land. So we need to take that into account. You are correct.
^^^ Gangs and gang initiations may be a symptom of a broader problem, or maybe not. Part of it is very due to the social-economic issues that SJG states. And yes, there is a culture problem in the hood of gangs and gang violence. But the existence of gangs and guns isn't itself the root problem. Part of it, is there is will where a young person will reach for a gun and use that gun to solve problems. President Obama mentioned this. Now, he didn't have an answer or a solution. But somehow, we as a people, need to help foster neighborhoods where some doesn't reach for a gun to solves problems, like we are seeing in Chicago.
--
The solution is probably a bunch of very low tech approaches. Many of these are time-tested.
1. If you have a gun, secure it. Don't let a troubled youngster get it.
2. If you have a gun, that you no longer need nor want, secure it, or turn it into the police. Don't let a troubled youngster get it.
3. The police want to increase incarceration rates and harsher sentences. Their hearts are brains are in the right place. It will temporarily help, yes. In the long run, I DO NOT see the BENEFIT of locking up young men, fathers, and mentors LONG TERM. This perpetuates already fractured families. Enough youth are growing up without good, male role models, mentors, and fathers.
4. The break down of the family. Where are the fathers?
5. The values need to start at home.
6. Are we moving too far from God and Faith?
7. Should we re-acquaint ourselves with ascetic lifestyle, promoted by traditional Christianity? I do not see all this materialism as a good thing.
8. Neighborhood watches.
9. Good, marriage material men are moving away from the inner cities (When they can) and are no longer available for disadvantaged young women. Is this good or bad?
10. Everyone needs to watch the constitutional rights and police procedure videos I linked above (Yes, I am tooting my own horn there).
I think I've written more than SJG all week. So I will leave it there. :)
May 26, 2016
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini…
As a general point to the liberal gun policies:
Also the assault weapons "bans" make no sense. What is and is not an assault weapon is a strange delineation and fails to include "all military style" weapons, like the public "thinks" are included. Also high-capacity magazines and cartridges (30 rounds) are needed for the Constitution's "escape clause", guarantied but the 2nd Amendment. In and when that day comes, we will need access to military grade hardware, including 30 round magazines. So banning this stuff is against the Founding Fathers' intentions for our Republic. :)
Until people in Chicago are willing to be honest with themselves, and elect politicians who want to fix the city and not just perpetuate their time in office, this will continue until Chicago is bankrupt and unlivable.
Black on black crime. SMH. They have lost their damn souls.