Chicagoland Sportbike Forums banner

What is going on with Chicago

2K views 40 replies 24 participants last post by  SloRoll 
#1 ·
Can anyone explain WTF is in the water the last three months where we have 114 deaths in three months in the city

I mean really 39 shootings 10 dead and a cop shot in one weekend.

last night 13 shot wtf now i am thinking twice about returning.

Hell I was back for a day last week and at 28th and kildare when a guy got shot 3 times in the alley at 2pm in the afternoon. sadly i have the aftermath part of it caught by iphone as they loaded him in a bag and into the ambulance

Its getting a bit to idiotic there with these gangs if you ask me
 
#3 ·
Warm weather. Nobody wants to go on a killing spree when it's below zero outside, and it's tough to do drive-bys in the snow. Just got an early start this year that's all. Just like every year it'll taper off toward mid-summer after all the winter grudges have been settled and it's time to reload.
 
#5 ·
I dunno they way the are killing each other and cops something says its going to be a long summer in general
 
#7 ·
Chicago New York and Washington have the strongest handgun laws in the nation and the incidents of violent crime with guns has increased in all three cites. Yet everywhere that they have concelled carry violent gun crime goes down. What is it that these people don't get? Bangers will have guns no matter what.
 
#8 ·
So...more guns equals less gun violence? Last I checked, murder is illegal, and yet people still choose to murder. Perhaps consequences don't matter so much when you reach that point in your mentality / desperation?

If I was in the mood to murder someone, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter much to me if they had a concealed weapon handy.

There are lots of cases to be made for relaxed gun control laws, this however is not one of them.
 
#16 ·
My reading comprehension is fine, thank you very much...your premise is still senseless in context.
You asked the question: "So...more guns equals less violence?" Which in context to the post you were responding to was a negative against conceal carry. That is senseless in the context BECAUSE...As I posted, where conceal carry has been allowed gun crime has been reduced by an average of 33%...Not all gun crimes result in murder but all murders resulting from gun crime CAN be reduced with conceal (or open) carry BECAUSE it reduces gun crime overall.
So...to answer your question...YES...more guns (in the proper hands) CAN equal less violence!
 
#21 ·
You asked the question: "So...more guns equals less violence?" Which in context to the post you were responding to was a negative against conceal carry. That is senseless in the context BECAUSE...As I posted, where conceal carry has been allowed gun crime has been reduced by an average of 33%...Not all gun crimes result in murder but all murders resulting from gun crime CAN be reduced with conceal (or open) carry BECAUSE it reduces gun crime overall.
So...to answer your question...YES...more guns (in the proper hands) CAN equal less violence!
Here's the thing: I agree with Underdog that just handing out pistol permits isn't going to cut the number of people being shot. It might help the murder rate, but only on the technical basis that, when the would-be victim shoots back, and kills the would-be murderer, it's not murder but self-defense; the body count, however, remains the same. I also agree that many murders, probably the vast majority of them, are planned out in advance. In those cases, the murderer is just going to take the victim's gun into account in the plan, and charge ahead anyway.

So, no, chances are very good that dropping gun control altogether won't do one thing to reduce gun violence in the City. People that were going to kill people while guns weren't legal are probably still going to do it once guns become legal. The one thing it might do is to eliminate the AUUW charge from any indictment that follows.

Now, gun control is pretty much irrelevant to any of that; obviously, shootings are going on now on the streets of Chicago, and the fact that many of the victims are, in fact, armed, is one reason why drive-by (and bike-by) shootings are so popular. It's not like a blanket ban on public armaments is helping things much, so there's a good argument to be made that it should be repealed. But it should be obvious that an awful lot of people should not carry guns in public: the anxious, the insane, the felons, the people with bad aim, and many more. I can't go along with the popular notion (now put into practice, ineffectually, by the "Constitutional Carry" faction downstate) that letting them pack heat is a good idea or is going to do one iota of good reducing crime. So, let me follow up the question: you mention that the guns should be in the proper hands. Whose hands are those?

You mentioned above that allowing public carry leads to having "armed and trained citizens that are ready, willing and ABLE to LEGALLY shoot criminals as soon as they make their move!" Are you suggesting that some form of control is still needed, to ensure that the armed citizens are, in fact, ready, willing and able? Will they be obligated to learn what moves by the criminal justify shooting? Will they be held to account if they decide that a criminal turning and running away is enough of a move to warrant being shot, or if the "criminal" turns out not to be?
 
#18 ·
Liberals :rolleyes


Murder is only a crime if it isn't self defense or capital punishment :robewizar




Strange that "criminals" are killing people in chicago with guns since the 1970s when they are illegal. wait, isn't murder and guns illegal? wait its till happening for the last 40 years. Chicago has been democratic rule for so many decades and Chicago is the top 5 in deadliest cities.
 
#19 ·
they dont get it, i lived with these gang bangers and dealt with them for over three years, over 6 months with them in CCDOC, div 5,6,14, its plain survival on a day to day basis, they think someone might come after them they shoot first, it really a savage mentality. They dont care about gun laws, they'd rather risk getting a UUW then getting shot. They will never fix this shit unless they reinstate the death penalty but that would have to be harsh - like cleaning out death row every month and feed mofos to lions and shit and televise it pay per view. I dont see anything changing, especially when you have Nickle bag herion tips making $10k a day on one corner.
 
#24 ·
^^^ In a word...Yes. In no place where conceal carry is allowed are citizens allowed to just obtain permits and carry weapons. They must go through a rather stringent course and PASS said course to the satisfaction of the pro instructor giving the course. I have no problem with that as a requirement to be allowed to carry a firearm. I also would have no problem with a mandatory gun safety course for those who don't wish to carry but want to have a firearm in their home.
 
#29 ·
The government charges a fee and licenses our ability to drive vehicles on public roads...
Which is not a perfect example but taking it further and citing a more efficient example...The government licenses pilots and sets requirements that they must maintain proficiency and qualify regularly...that one works pretty good...I wouldn't expect anything less for citizens that will have deadly force at their disposal...AND it's accomplished by using the private sector to verify that proficiency.
 
#30 ·
Wow city shock i want to go back to KY and i just got home
 
#34 ·
They do. This is obviously a topic that stirs a lot of passion, to say it dryly, and also seems to hook into a lot of other political issues. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but I've got skin in this game.

In no place where conceal carry is allowed are citizens allowed to just obtain permits and carry weapons. They must go through a rather stringent course and PASS said course to the satisfaction of the pro instructor giving the course. I have no problem with that as a requirement to be allowed to carry a firearm. I also would have no problem with a mandatory gun safety course for those who don't wish to carry but want to have a firearm in their home.
Understand that I'm coming at this from the much-vilified City Liberal point of view; but having said so, thanks, that does clear up a lot of questions that I've had on the subject. I don't think most of the CCW opponents really understand the level of training and scrutiny that's proposed for issuing a permit, and if that were made more prominent, I'd suggest the odds of getting concealed carry passed in Illinois would be much higher.

Back to the topic at hand for a moment: I'm still not sold on the idea that CCW would reduce either the murder rate or the crime rate in general. I know of too many people, well-educated and well-qualified people, who can't even make up their mind to do what clear, written directions tell them to do, and I think we all know about people who witness an accident and just stand there, frozen, when they could help. When it comes to deciding to fire a weapon at another person--well, I can't say what the deterrent effect might do on its own, but I really doubt that many people would both qualify for CCW and be willing to use it even in the clearest cases. I guess it makes the option available, and that's something, but what I'm saying is, maybe not much.

For what it's worth, here (41 kb PDF) is the position of the Chicago Crime Commission last time they stated it. I have issues with some of the logic employed, but I think the last two paragraphs confirm what I said above about needing to emphasize the training requirements.

First, I believe that CCW should be "shall issue," that is if you apply, meet all background qualifications, and meet all training criteria, then the state must/shall issue a CCW. But personally I place heavier focus on training criteria.

While I believe we the people should have the right to have CCW available to us, I believe that similar to a driver's license, that training criteria must first be met. But unlike the joke that is Driver's Ed, I believe CCW training must be much more stringent and intense. [....]

Ideally speaking, this would help to reduce and limit CCW to those who can not only prove their proficiency, but have been well educated regarding what they must and must not do, as a CCW carrier. Of course, all of the training in the world cannot filter out all riff raff, but that can be said about anything. But that is how I would ensure that CCW remains in "proper hands."
And I could go along with all of that. I'd further suggest an experience requirement (some reasonable period as a FOID holder before being allowed to apply for an open carry permit, and some more time before the concealed permit), though with the kind of training you describe that may not be necessary. It might also be good to allow the National Guard to call on CCW licensees to "aid in the common defense," as the language would probably put it, in severe emergencies: basically, if the City's gone completely to hell, and there aren't enough police and Guardsmen available to get things under control, that would permit the Guard to get someone else out there with arms and training. I doubt this would play politically (either for the gun-owners or the Guard), but if you're building up a resource of armed citizens, it seems reasonable to have the ability to direct that resource under dire conditions.
 
#32 ·
^^Just you.:laughing: You know, as a guy who routinely finds himself in other large cities across the country I've noticed, they all have gangs, they all have multi-cultural populations, they all have dark alleys and run down neighborhoods, and all but the cities in Illinois allow citizens to protect themselves. Funny, that in the very places where guns are vilified and the criminals are protected from return fire, the violence is the highest. (1 dead 8 wounded just last night.) Wake up Illinois.
 
#41 ·
This is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for fighting, the other's for fun.:laughing:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top