craddock 0 #26 April 30, 2007 Quotemaybe the someone should have told the gunman that, or maybe he didnt see the sign?? Have you really missed the point that bad?? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #27 April 30, 2007 With all the kicking deaths, it' time to ban Doc Martens. Clearly the air-cushioned sole makes stomping too much fun.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Gun-free Chicago had MORE murders, MORE robberies, and MORE aggravated assaults than Houston in 2005, for example. I thought that getting rid of all the guns reduced crime, isn't that your lot keeps braying? Why isn't Houston FAR outstripping Chicago in crime? ermm is it hard to get past the border control into Chicago theses days?? Surely its not as easy as just legally buying a gun in another state and driving into Chigago, or walking, maybe even catching the train…. Texas is a concealed carry state with a large "gun population", Illinois is not. If it were the availability of guns, Houston SHOULD far outstrip Chicago, yet it doesn't. Your logic is faulty. By YOUR logic, Moreton Grove, IL, should far outstrip Houston. It doesn't. Has it occurred to you to compare on the basis of population? Apparently not! CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION: (32 cities) Most Dangerous 10 (violent crimes per capita), 1 Detroit, MI 2 Washington, DC 3 Baltimore, MD 4 Memphis, TN 5 Dallas, TX 6 Philadelphia, PA 7 Columbus, OH 8 Nashville, TN 9 Houston, TX 10 Phoenix, AZ Chicago and NYC don't make the top 10.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 April 30, 2007 I can see why Chicago wouldn't, since IL hasn't reported total numbers of violent crimes or forcible rapes in years... edit: I beg your pardon - IL's reporting doesn't match UCR guidelines and isn't listed. Where is that info from, and for what year? Mine was from UCR for 2005.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #30 April 30, 2007 QuoteI can see why Chicago wouldn't, since IL hasn't reported total numbers of violent crimes or forcible rapes in years... Where is that info from, and for what year? Mine was from UCR for 2005. Here's a snippet from the FBI UCR2005 Homicides per 100,000 Illinois 6.0 Texas 6.2... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteI can see why Chicago wouldn't, since IL hasn't reported total numbers of violent crimes or forcible rapes in years... Where is that info from, and for what year? Mine was from UCR for 2005. Here's a snippet from the FBI UCR2005 Homicides per 100,000 Illinois 6.0 Texas 6.2 And historically?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #32 April 30, 2007 Once Daley is out of office, there just might be a person in the Mayor's office reasonable enough to allow law abiding people to carry a weapon to protect themselves from the armed criminals who don't care about/obey already existing gun laws that serve only to create unarmed prey.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #33 April 30, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Nice way to avoid the question Quote Read my whole post - I didn't avoid the question. yes you did Quote I guess guns caused this, as well, eh? Quote im sure there are plenty of stories of how a pesky perp got drilled by some gun ho pistol packing American hero, but in the last 2 weeks alone how many innocent people have been shot... we don’t read about this shooting sprees happening in the uk and Australia with such regularity now do we.. UK and Aussie land don't have 200,000,000 people either. *yawn* maybe instead of blindly quoting populus why don’t you work out the per capita gun massacres.. I don't need to. I live here...you don't. What concern is it of yours whether we have access to hanguns, semi-auto rifles, shotguns, etc.? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #34 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI can see why Chicago wouldn't, since IL hasn't reported total numbers of violent crimes or forcible rapes in years... Where is that info from, and for what year? Mine was from UCR for 2005. Here's a snippet from the FBI UCR2005 Homicides per 100,000 Illinois 6.0 Texas 6.2 And historically? Why change the subject now? You wanted to compare FBI data from 2005: From the FBI UCR 2005 HOMICIDE rates per 100,000 inhabitants: Chicago 15.6 Dallas 16.8 Houston 16.3 Here's a state ranking: www.morganquitno.com/dang07.htm... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 April 30, 2007 Quote[CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION: (32 cities) Most Dangerous 10 (violent crimes per capita), ... Chicago and NYC don't make the top 10. Now I know if one looked into your posting history, they'd fine that you frequently post that murder is the only directly comparable metric because of inconsistencies in reporting and counting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuote[CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION: (32 cities) Most Dangerous 10 (violent crimes per capita), Chicago and NYC don't make the top 10. Now I know if one looked into your posting history, they'd fine that you frequently post that murder is the only directly comparable metric because of inconsistencies in reporting and counting. Oh, he was hoping no one would notice that... When the stats don't go his anti-gun way, then he cries about using "murder" stats only. But when the murder stats don't go his way, then he's more than happy to switch to "violent crime"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #37 April 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote[CITIES OF 500,000 OR MORE POPULATION: (32 cities) Most Dangerous 10 (violent crimes per capita), Chicago and NYC don't make the top 10. Now I know if one looked into your posting history, they'd fine that you frequently post that murder is the only directly comparable metric because of inconsistencies in reporting and counting. Oh, he was hoping no one would notice that... When the stats don't go his anti-gun way, then he cries about using "murder" stats only. But when the murder stats don't go his way, then he's more than happy to switch to "violent crime"... Missed this, did you?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #38 April 30, 2007 The only problem I have with this is that most people from Chicago area know that they do not have accurate murder data. Ever since I moved here I have there have been countless families claiming their loves one was murdered and the Chicago PD claimed otherwise. Chicago PD's COD will many time contradict the coroners. There is widespead corruption throughout the Chicago PD. The are under pressure to reduce the murder rate at all costs. There have been investigations on this. The last time I brought this up you scoffed at me because you are using FBI data, not Chicago PD. Where does the FBI come up with its data? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #39 April 30, 2007 QuoteThe only problem I have with this is that most people from Chicago area know that they do not have accurate murder data. Ever since I moved here I have there have been countless families claiming their loves one was murdered and the Chicago PD claimed otherwise. Chicago PD's COD will many time contradict the coroners. There is widespead corruption throughout the Chicago PD. The are under pressure to reduce the murder rate at all costs. There have been investigations on this. The last time I brought this up you scoffed at me because you are using FBI data, not Chicago PD. Where does the FBI come up with its data? Right - all those bullet holes arise from natural causes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #40 April 30, 2007 Chicago is not safer due to gun laws. It's just created prey with no means of defense.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 May 1, 2007 QuoteMissed this, did you? Wasn't missed. But it wasn't germane to the response. If you want to rank the murder rates for all cities over 500k, let's see where Chicago lies. (and to not hide behind one good year, do it for the last 5) Bet we won't be seeing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #42 May 1, 2007 QuoteRight - all those bullet holes arise from natural causes. ?????? That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #43 May 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteMissed this, did you? Wasn't missed. But it wasn't germane to the response. If you want to rank the murder rates for all cities over 500k, let's see where Chicago lies. (and to not hide behind one good year, do it for the last 5) Bet we won't be seeing that. You are at liberty to do your own research to prove any point you are trying to make. However, I suggest you actually do the research before claiming to know the result. Expecting others to do your research for you is just plain lazy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strop45 0 #44 May 1, 2007 QuoteMake you gun-control advocates a deal: you get rid of violent gangs, thieves, burglars, rapists, and murderers - nationwide, permanently - and I'll gladly hand in my weapons and we can all sing kum-ba-yah. And that's the problem - an absence of gun control laws has armed more of the above people than everyone else. If they want a gun to make crime easier, its no problem to get one (even legally). Everyone else then either has a gun or lives in the hope that they won't come across someone with one. So many criminals do honest/law abiding people shoot? - not as many as the accidental shootings, teenagers committing suicide etc etc etc. Its a real dilemma, I don't think strict gun control in the USA would do anything except empower the wrong people in the short term, but maybe thats the price for long-term peace-of-mind. As the criminals get more and more powerful weapons, does everyone else need the same? Should no limits apply? .....but then what do know, I live in a country where even the police aren't armed......The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #45 May 1, 2007 Well, despite your opinion here is a US State legislater that knows what is the right thing to do. State law trumps local rules regarding guns BY DION LEFLER AND BRENT D. WISTROM The Wichita Eagle Concealed carry law vetoed TOPEKA - The state, not local governments, will decide where Kansans can carry concealed guns. That's the main effect of a vote Friday by the Kansas Senate on a bill that negates local gun-control laws. The bill also says that private businesses, which can prohibit guns inside their buildings, cannot designate their parking lots as gun-free zones. By a 30-10 vote, senators overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' veto of House Bill 2825. A two-thirds majority was needed. The override passed the House Thursday 98-26. The bill becomes law without the governor's approval. It prohibits cities and counties from enforcing local laws to regulate where holders of state-issued concealed-weapons permits can take their guns. A single set of statewide standards is needed so permit holders won't have to worry about inadvertently violating a local ordinance when traveling with their weapons, said Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, chief sponsor in the Senate. Effect in Wichita The state law will void a law the Wichita City Council approved in December that made it a misdemeanor for people to carry concealed firearms on city properties such as parks and municipal parking lots. "I personally think it eats away at home rule," council member Sharon Fearey said. "It's just one more time the state thinks it knows what is better for citizens than local leaders do." But other Wichita council members said they support the Legislature's decision. "I think we should follow the law," council member Paul Gray said. "I think it was a good law and I like it," council member Sue Schlapp said. Council member Jim Skelton said he has seen people on bike paths and parks that could pose a danger to the public and that a law-abiding and licensed person could possibly stop a crime if necessary. "It's a good thing," he said. Law called inconsistent Sebelius issued a statement decrying the veto override, saying local governments should be empowered to make safety decisions. She also said the new law will be inconsistent. "This new law will now allow a restriction on guns at a school-sponsored event, like a soccer game, but prohibit local officials from restricting guns at a similar event, on an adjacent field, if the soccer game was sponsored by the local community league," the statement said. Dennis Brunner, a Wichita Park Board member, said allowing concealed weapons in parks could make bad situations, such as a fight, worse. City laws prohibit drinking in parks, but Brunner said there's no question some people party in parks sometimes. If a gunfight broke out, someone with a concealed gun might just escalate the violence and make it worse, he said. "You should call 911, protect yourself, and let the trained (police officers) come in and defuse the situation," he said. But Park Board member Doug Leeper said he thinks that someone with a concealed firearm might be able to defuse such a situation or stop a gunman from shooting anyone else. "We all want safe parks, and guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens, I don't see as a threat," he said. Va. Tech in mind The final action on the bill reflected some of the soul-searching that has gone on throughout the nation since the April 16 massacre at Virginia Tech University, where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before turning his gun on himself. Proponents of gun control have argued that easy access to firearms facilitates mass killings, while pro-gun groups contend armed citizens can prevent or minimize such incidents. Journey, a strong supporter of concealed-carry rights and a National Rifle Association leader, said the events at Virginia Tech "demand that we enact (House Bill 2825) into law... not only for the permittees, but also for the citizens of the state of Kansas." Senators on both sides changed their votes since the bill's original approval. Sen. Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, switched from "yes" to "no"; Sens. Jean Schodorf, R-Wichita and Janis Lee, D-Kensington, switched from "no" to "yes." Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, argued against the bill, saying that proponents had broken an agreement they made in the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. The agreement had added language that would have allowed local governments to ban guns from outdoor events that are fenced in with controlled access. That language was removed when the bill was amended on the Senate floor. Friday's vote marked only the second time lawmakers have overruled the governor, who has vetoed 61 bills since taking office four years ago. The other override came on the same issue, after Sebelius vetoed last year's concealed-carry bill. Reach Dion Lefler at 785-296-3006 or Brent D. Wistrom at 316-268-6228."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 May 1, 2007 Quote You are at liberty to do your own research to prove any point you are trying to make. However, I suggest you actually do the research before claiming to know the result. Expecting others to do your research for you is just plain lazy. I'll follow your tact: find research or misuse it when it suits my purposes, hope that no one else checks me up on it. I noticed you don't explain your inconsistency on the suitability of violent crime stats between regions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote You are at liberty to do your own research to prove any point you are trying to make. However, I suggest you actually do the research before claiming to know the result. Expecting others to do your research for you is just plain lazy. I'll follow your tact: find research or misuse it when it suits my purposes, hope that no one else checks me up on it. I noticed you don't explain your inconsistency on the suitability of violent crime stats between regions. Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #48 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Quote You are at liberty to do your own research to prove any point you are trying to make. However, I suggest you actually do the research before claiming to know the result. Expecting others to do your research for you is just plain lazy. I'll follow your tact: find research or misuse it when it suits my purposes, hope that no one else checks me up on it. I noticed you don't explain your inconsistency on the suitability of violent crime stats between regions. Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh? Aaaahhhh, your answers are so cuteNo content, just cute"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 May 1, 2007 Quote Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh? Tell you what - when you find a state that gives felony convictions to people going 15mph over the limit, I'll spend time proving the obvious - Chicago has crime problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #50 May 1, 2007 Quote Quote Couldn't find any data to support your assertions, eh? Tell you what - when you find a state that gives felony convictions to people going 15mph over the limit, I'll spend time proving the obvious - Chicago has crime problems. The claim, which you seem to have forgotten, was a comparison with Houston. No one denies that there is crime in Chicago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
