102 shot, 15 fatally, in Chicago over July 4 holiday weekend

[billvon 3,073]

Quote

The State of Arizona is what is known as a "Constitutional Carry" state (as of 2010). This means if you are legal to own a gun; you can carry a gun; no background or vetting process; thus no permit required. I don't recall reading much about the inordinate amount of homicides by firearms in the major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa, Chandler, Glendale, etc.

Because Arizona has only one of the factors that leads to a lot of gun violence.

Quote

it will only get worse until they wipe out the gangs.

Beware "single cause" arguments.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If what you wrote (underlined by me) is true, then how is that possible in a city like Chicago that has some of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Because you don't have to go very far to circumvent those laws and there are not a lot of barriers to get there.

Quote

The primary problem in Chicago (as the FBI and CDC have suggested) are the gangs which are responsible for nearly 70% of all homicides committed in that city.

That percentage is probably very close to what it is in Toronto. Pretty heavily populated, large city. Yet it is significantly harder to get both guns and ammunition here.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

OK now _that_ I agree with!

Great. We have something we can build on.

We have identified 3 factors that contribute to gun crime; organized crime, poverty, and ease of access to guns.

Addressing any of the 3 can have the impact of lowering gun crimes.

Which should society put their resources into addressing?

1- Organized crime. Reducing organized crime will benefit society in many ways beyond reducing gun crimes. Seems like a good place to invest resources.

2- Poverty. Another good area to spend resources. Programs that provide people with training, good paying jobs, transportation, etc. All good places to expend resources.

3-Ease of access to guns. Limited impact. Some neighborhoods will see zero reduction in gun crimes. Very difficult to pass laws limiting constitutional rights and these laws can be bypassed by going out of the area and creates a black market.

These are just initial thoughts and can be debated, but the reality is, #3 is a loser.

Kallend- Read billvon's post again: "WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology. "

Kallend: "More guns - more gun crime."

Derek V

[correcceo 0]

gowlerk

In Canada we don't generally have armed police in our schools. Why? We don't need them because there are much fewer guns.

Given our brief conversation the other day, I figured you would've already corrected your bit of misinformation - so please, allow me:

Cities like Edmonton and Calgary have had SRO programs with sworn police officers in their schools since the late 70s.

After the shooting death of Jordan Manners in 2007, Toronto implemented their own SRO program.

The vast majority of these programs have been successful and well received by the community over the years.

The only controversy seems to have come this past year from BLM and the LAEN in Toronto that oppose the program, calling it "a school to incarceration pipeline"

"A procession of principals, teachers and students from diverse racial backgrounds expressed strong support for the police presence — though it didn’t seem to influence BLM’s view."

LAEN has already stated that it will still oppose the program despite research showing that such programs benefit students - Apparently the LAEN has their own anecdotal "research" to justify their cause:


https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/15/students-benefit-from-police-in-schools-peel-study-finds.html


https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/06/21/how-police-became-the-enemy-in-toronto-schools-cohn.html

For the record, I have mixed feelings about this. I can understand the concerns, but rather than rushing to eliminate this program, how about we just address those concerns and refine it? Kinda like Obama care, eh?

[tkhayes 348]

https://informalberta.ca/public/service/serviceProfileStyled.do?serviceQueryId=974

The primary purpose(s) of the SRO programs in Canada is NOT armed guards protecting kids from crazy people with guns and any attempt to suggest that as the purpose is wildly inaccurate.

These are resource officers and like so many things done differently in Canada, we (they) tend to focus on more important matters than worrying about getting shot every day and being obsessed with guns.

We have real problems that we address, like drugs, alcohol, learning to drive, pregnancy and education, etc.

[skyjames 2]

Quote

Kallend- Read billvon's post again: "WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology. "

From what I can tell, specialK thinks it's people like me who are the reason all gun violence occurs.

This poster owns legal guns, though has never had one stolen, keeps them in a gun safe. (not that that would stop someone really determined to steal them)

"exit fast, fly smooth, dock soft and smile"
'nother james

[correcceo 0]

tkhayes

https://informalberta.ca/public/service/serviceProfileStyled.do?serviceQueryId=974

The primary purpose(s) of the SRO programs in Canada is NOT armed guards protecting kids from crazy people with guns and any attempt to suggest that as the purpose is wildly inaccurate.

These are resource officers and like so many things done differently in Canada, we (they) tend to focus on more important matters than worrying about getting shot every day and being obsessed with guns.

We have real problems that we address, like drugs, alcohol, learning to drive, pregnancy and education, etc.

From your Link:
"Thirty eight SRO's are assigned to cover all public schools (CBE and CCSD) kindergarten to grade 12. Police Officers work together with students, schools and families to sustain safe and resilient school communities.

Service offers:
-assistance with issues such as peer pressure, drugs, bullying, youth gangs and pressure to commit vandalism, including graffiti

-help by talking to students to help resolve a situation before it becomes a serious problem"

Sounds very similar to US SROs.

And as I said, the Toronto SRO program started in response to the school shooting death of 15 year old Jordan Manners in 2007 by a "crazy person with a gun."

[tkhayes 348]

right, and none of those SRO descriptions include 'gun violence', which is the main point of this thread. I see the thread digressing into some sort of a diversion about gun violence and a 'see I told you so' issue comparing these SROs with ANYTHING to do with gun violence per se.

It's like saying that the main purpose of having paramedics is because of gun violence, just because they once responded to a violent gun situation, when 99% of their time they are transporting drunks/addicts and homeless people to the hospital or dealing with simple accidents.

I would hate to see the conversation get sidelined by some so NOT relevant to the conversation as an officer at a school that is talking to a bunch of kids about graffiti on the walls and why they should not bully that other kid.....

[correcceo 0]

Ken falsely stated in a public forum that Canada doesn't have armed police officers in their schools. I simply provided information showing that Canada does, in fact have armed police officers in their schools, and that such programs have existed for almost 40 years. I don't see why I should be faulted for pointing that out.

I never said the primary purpose of Canada's SROs was to deal solely with gun violence in schools. The U.S has had SRO programs since the 50s, and even those weren't primarily designed to protect against gun violence.

Having said that, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Toronto's SRO program was implemented in 2008 because of the school shooting death of Jordan Manners.

You may not think that parents should be worried, but they are. At a raucous meeting about the fate of such programs, one Toronto mother shouted "ponder the blood shed by Blacks because of violence in our schools!"

If a child is a victim of gun violence in Canada, their parents don't care if the murder rate is 1. It might as well be 1000 - it's all the same to them, hence Toronto's armed SRO program.

[kallend 2,106]

skyjames

Quote

Kallend- Read billvon's post again: "WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology. "

From what I can tell, specialK thinks it's people like me who are the reason all gun violence occurs.

Your mind reading skills need a serious tune up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skyjames 2]

I must have read incorrectly, it wasn't you that said or quoted as a supporting factoid:

Quote

Some 300,000 guns are stolen from legal gun owners every year according to the DoJ.

Every one of them ends up in the hands of a criminal.

"exit fast, fly smooth, dock soft and smile"
'nother james

[wmw999 2,541]

If your guns aren't stolen, then they aren't going to criminals. However, most guns that criminals own seem to come from robberies/burglaries/thefts.

It's kind of like saying that the vast majority of rapists of women are men; that doesn't mean that the vast majority of men are rapists -- far from it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,106]

skyjames

I must have read incorrectly, it wasn't you that said or quoted as a supporting factoid:

Quote

Some 300,000 guns are stolen from legal gun owners every year according to the DoJ.

Every one of them ends up in the hands of a criminal.

It's a statement of FACT.

What part of that statement do you think applies to YOU?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yarpos 4]

kallend

*********http://abc7chicago.com/news/102-shot-14-fatally-in-chicago-over-july-4-holiday-weekend/2184156/

Is it any wonder BLM isn't taken seriously?

What does the Bureau of Land Management have to do with it?

Funny. 102 people wounded...15 die and you make a joke. Bet you wouldn't be so sarcastic if you knew any of them.

Perhaps you should be specific. The only BLM I know is the Bureau of Land management.

Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline.

Yes sure thats it, its all those legal gun owners and CCW people running rampant isnt it?

There was a decade of decline and then flat for decade, cause /effect? I guess you can fashion any story that suits your politics.

regards, Steve
the older I get...the better I was

[mirage62 0]

Here's a question.

Do they have stop and frisk in Chicago?

IMO gun owners should have to have training, show intent to reasonably secure their weapons and be registered ( the person not the gun)

They give up a little of you rights for the good of the people.

"Stop and frisk" does target the minorities - that's a fact. It's also a fact that minorities commit more crime. Chicago shows where the crime is you stop and frisk higher (much higher) than Johns neighborhood.

They give up a little of their rights for the good of the people.

Compromise.... it could work. Understand that the gun owner doesn't want to give.... the person walking down the street innocently does want to be stop. Both can be very good people.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 854]

I thought stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.
It should be IMO.

[turtlespeed 226]

airdvr

http://abc7chicago.com/news/102-shot-14-fatally-in-chicago-over-july-4-holiday-weekend/2184156/

Is it any wonder BLM isn't taken seriously?

I know I'm late - but hopefully the south Chicago dwelling phd wehave here is ok.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[correcceo 0]

wmw999

most guns that criminals own seem to come from robberies/burglaries/thefts.

It may seem that way, but when it comes to actual gun violence, it seems only 15-20 percent of stolen guns are used in violent crimes. The rest seem to come from straw purchases or legal gun dealers profiting from illegal gun trafficking.

One study shows that about 8% of all gun dealers account for the majority of guns used in crime.

Another study showed that 60% of guns used in crimes were traced back to 1% of legal gun dealers.

ATF officials "conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed is...better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally."

Here's a tip:
If you really care about limiting gun violence, rather than merely taking a jab at legal gun toting conservative republicans, then perhaps you need to focus more on the Tiahrt Amendments. Tho these amendments have been loosened over the years, they still don't require dealers to disclose their inventory.

"Requiring the submission of inventories by gun dealers forces dealers to better control their inventories and helps prevent corrupt dealers from supplying the illegal market and then claiming that their firearms have simply disappeared."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.3a8687a8c65c

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/federal-law/other-laws/tiahrt-amendments/

BTW, I know this post will soon be deleted just like all the other data I've provided refuting the load of misinformation in this thread - and we will be dumber for it.

It just goes to show that the people here are more interested in promoting their own worldview rather than truth. Facts be damned. . .

[wmw999 2,541]

Thanks for posting this; no, I didn't know. Sounds like I have some reading to do.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mirage62 0]

Quote

I thought stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional.
It should be IMO.

Pretty sure a LOT of gun rights have been ruled constitutional...they should be IMO

Difference between our post Mark is I'm looking for solutions buddy.

What would be you non-gun regulation change (since you don't like stop and frisk)?

You can go back to guns....AFTER you work on the other side of the process.

Seriously what's your idea?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[normiss 854]

I much prefer my rights under the 4th to a stop and frisk.

Giving up some rights to preserve others is nonsense.

Maybe we could start an effort to bring back neighborhood policing.

Who said I wasn't looking for solutions?

[correcceo 0]

normiss

I much prefer my rights under the 4th to a stop and frisk.

That's fine, stop and frisk is unconstitutional. That's one of the reasons that make this country so great. Cops need cause, unlike many European countries.

Just know that since the end of stop and frisk, crime has went up - at least in Chicago.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[airdvr 210]

normiss

I much prefer my rights under the 4th to a stop and frisk.

Giving up some rights to preserve others is nonsense.

Maybe we could start an effort to bring back neighborhood policing.

Who said I wasn't looking for solutions?

As I said before the only ones who can get this under control are the people who live there. Neighborhood policing is a good start, but to be truly effective the residents are going to have to start cooperating with law enforcement. The chasm there is huge and I don't know how you would begin to cross it. Used to be laws that required a cop or firefighter to live in the city. I'm sure that's not the case anymore.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[correcceo 0]

wmw999

I suppose that someone who lives in Pennsylvania could focus on Chicago ("Chiraq") because it's so easy; kind of like robbing banks, it's where the money is (and, of course, the confirmation of one's preconceptions). However that doesn't really solve any problems, other than to point to something shiny to distract from how the issue of gun violence might be addressed.

I've posted plenty of information from the CDC on how to address the issue, but it seems to fall on dead ears because if focuses on improving inner city life. Liberals don't want to hear that. They want to hear how the conservative gun-toting white man is to blame!

wmw999

In other words -- why do you care about Chicago

Because it's a good city to focus on from a research perspective. Taking a jab at BLM doesn't negate that.

Besides, I read somewhere that crime in this country is projected to rise by 13%, half of which would be attributed to Chicago alone - that's a big deal. Stop deflecting.