Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, July 07, 2014

Chicago's police superintendent lashed out at what he called lax state and federal gun laws after a violent Fourth of July weekend that saw more than 60 people shot and nine killed in a city already known for frequent shootings. "There has to come a tipping point where this changes," Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said Monday of the violence. "The illogical nature of what's happening here -- that government can intercede and prevent this from happening is overwhelming. And I refuse to think otherwise in a great country like America that we can continue to allow this to happen -- not just on a state, but on a federal level."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

lee_the_agent

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gun laws don't shoot people....guns do. Or people. Or something.

#1 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-07-07 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And I refuse to think otherwise in a great country like America...."

He left out a word..."And I refuse to think otherwise in a [former] great country like America...."

#2 | Posted by Visitor2 at 2014-07-07 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does anybody honestly believe that it makes any coherent sense for the Supreme Court to proclaim that the gun laws which apply to rural Arizona must also apply to inner city Chicago? (FYI: Simply parroting the words "Second Amendment" doesn't magically make such an approach coherently sensible.)

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-07 08:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does anybody honestly believe that it makes any coherent sense for the Supreme Court to proclaim that the gun laws which apply to rural Arizona must also apply to inner city Chicago?

#3 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-07 08:02 PMFlag:

The people that live in the rural areas are no different then the people that live in the urban areas.

Read between the lines.

As a lawyer you should know that. Right?

rwd

#4 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-07-07 10:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not a gun problem, guns are simply tools used by criminals.
Chicago's violence problem is gangs and drug turf.

As a society we cannot stop illegal drugs, assault, rape, murder and any other crime except shoplifting in prison.

Thinking more or better gun laws or even confiscation of guns will "cure" Chicago's violence problem denies reality.

As for the differences between cities like Chicago and rural areas or states is fewer gangs or at least lower concentration of gangs.

#5 | Posted by kingcuke at 2014-07-07 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

How many by cops?

#7 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-07-07 10:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm in favor of gun control measures such as universal background checks and mandatory monthly training to keep a CCW license, but Chicago's problems are bigger than new gun regulations. Sixty people shot in one weekend is appalling, and it points to an enormous gang and drug violence problem.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-07 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

My guns didn't kill anyone over the 4th...

#9 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-08 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#9: Mine didn't either. Go figure. We must have defective guns.

#10 | Posted by Daniel at 2014-07-08 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Puzzling...has such honest role models too:

4 Of State's Last 7 Governors Were Convicted, Imprisoned

Chicagoans Hillary, Barry..etc

#11 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-07-08 12:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Chicago needs strict Gang Control, not Gun Control.

#12 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-07-08 07:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure -- and in some cases I have -- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem."

JEFF COOPER

#13 | Posted by zack991 at 2014-07-08 07:39 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#8 | POSTED BY RCADE

I'd agree with that with one difference, make it yearly qualification just like the police departments or biannual. Monthly is a bit over the top.

#14 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 07:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Illinois is in the top 10 of the toughest State gun laws.

a buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm.

The City also has additional regulations:

Chicago has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons, as well as magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. Chicago residents must "immediately" report a firearm that is stolen or lost, and must report the transfer of a firearm at least 48 hours in advance. In a home where a person younger than 18 is present, all guns must be secured with a trigger lock, or stored in a locked container, or secured to the body of the legal owner. Chicago also prohibits the sale of firearms within city limits.

------- Meanwhile

Arizona
Arizona does not require a permit to purchase, own, or carry a gun (anyone carrying without a permit must be at least 21 years of age). The state's only registration requirements are the same as those set forth by the National Firearms Act. Arizona has castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws which allow a person to use deadly force against anyone forcibly and unlawfully entering their home and attempting to harm them. The person using self-defense does not have a duty to retreat.

Over the July 4th weekend I found 1 person shot in the Phoenix area in a family dispute.

Phoenix has a population of about 4.3 million... Chicago around 10
million....

I don't think gun laws are the problem.

#15 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-08 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

a buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm.

And that is supposed to be the end of the world in gun laws? Seriously?

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm in favor of gun control measures such as universal background checks and mandatory monthly training to keep a CCW license,

#8 | Posted by rcade

Do you really believe that will apply to the gangs in south chicago? That will do NOTHING to stop the people violence in the big cities.

A frind of mine once said, "you can only put so many rats in a cage before they start feerding on each other."

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-08 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

: Mine didn't either. Go figure. We must have defective guns.

#10 | Posted by Daniel

No, not defective, they are lazy guns. Mine wouldn't even get up off the couch and itself. I knew I should have done a background check on it before I bought it.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-08 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

And that is supposed to be the end of the world in gun laws? Seriously?
#16 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2014-07-08 08:33 AM | FLAG:

Those laws already exist in states that want them.

Out-of-state sales require the firearm to be transferred through federally licensed dealers to your home state, so you are still subject to the waiting period if your home state has one.

You know that mantra from the "gun nuts", enforce the laws already on the books? That includes those.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-08 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's comments like these that prove anti constitutional right types don't care about common sense gun control. We already have it. I guarantee that everyone of the shooters bought there gun illegally. They would not have passed a background check so they won't do one. They buy them much like drugs on a street corner or part of a drug deal. If someone can show where CCW permit carriers are a part of the gun violence in this country I could see some idea like Rcade's. Otherwise it's just another burden on law abiding citizens.

#20 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-08 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Federal law makes it illegal to:

Purchase a pistol in a state you are NOT a resident of
Purchase a firearm for another person
Purchase a firearm if you are a fellon

All states and the feds have laws against murder

WTF more do you want?

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-08 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

WTF more do you want?

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-08 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag

It makes no sense. If they are willing to murder people on the street like dogs why would anyone think they would care if they broke a few gun charges.

#22 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-07-08 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And that is supposed to be the end of the world in gun laws? Seriously?"

Missed the point totally.

Hardly any regulation in Phoenix, not many gun deaths. Tough regulation in Chicago.... bang bang all over the place.

All you do when you get tougher on guns is make it harder for those that obey the law to follow it. Criminals don't give a rip how many laws are passed.

Make it instant death to be in possession of a firearm and criminals will still have them. Destroy all firearms and ban all manufacturing and they will still get them overseas or make them.

What do you touchy feely types want?

#23 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-08 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Tough regulation in Chicago.... bang bang all over the place."

It's mostly drug dealers and gang bangers killiing each other in Chicago... you blame that on minor gun regulations?

As you say, criminals don't care about the law so how are the gun laws, insignificant as they are, going to affect criminals shooting other criminals?

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Some people are making a mockery of our rights and our society.

#25 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-07-08 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hardly any regulation in Phoenix, not many gun deaths. Tough regulation in Chicago.... bang bang all over the place.

Do you really think that Phoenix has less gun violence because there's less gun control there? These are gang violence problems. I don't think gang members in Phoenix are committing less gun crimes because they fear legally armed residents. Gang members are mostly shooting other gang members they know to be armed, since illegal guns are all over their neighborhoods.

There are plenty of big cities with stronger gun control laws that don't have the problems we're seeing in Chicago today.

People who are making this only about gun control are ignoring the complex nature of crime in big urban areas.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

They bring a knife, you bring a gun.
They put one of yours' in the hospital, you put one of theirs' in the morgue.
THAT'S the Chicago way!

#27 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-08 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd agree with that with one difference, make it yearly qualification just like the police departments or biannual. Monthly is a bit over the top.

Carrying a loaded gun on your person at all times is a serious responsibility. I think four hours one weekend a month is a reasonable training requirement for people who take on that responsibility, and it would weed out the clowns who are more likely to be reckless or stupid with their gun.

Cops train on when to use deadly force all the time. Why shouldn't citizens?

#28 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Gang members are mostly shooting other gang members they know to be armed, since illegal guns are all over their neighborhoods."

That is very true. It's not the guns its the gangs. Remove suicides and gang violence(according to the FBI that's about 80 percent) and you have just slightly over 2000 gun deaths a year. Kinda puts the "gun problem" in perspective.
I mean that's about 0.0005%. How many other rel problems only have a probability of .0005?

#29 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Cops train on when to use deadly force all the time. Why shouldn't citizens?"

Cops choose to be cops knowing that they might have to be in that situation. Citizen's make no choice to be attacked, you want to put training requirements on a basic human right to defense. That's not OK.

#30 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Gun ownership isn't a basic human right.

#31 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-08 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Why shouldn't citizens?

#28 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-08 11:28 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

If it's sub-par training, it doesn't matter how much you train it. Your state standard sucks. Here we do higher quality initial training with renewal intervals slowly being relaxed.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-08 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Gun ownership isn't a basic human right."

Defending yourself is.

#33 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 12:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Tell me one thing that you know that you need monthly retraining on?

Tell me one thing that you would view monthly training as anything other than a punishment.

Cops go through advanced drivers training... Should citizens be getting their licenses renewed every month?

#34 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-07-08 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would agree that self defense is a basic human right. Connected to that is the basic human right of all civilized societies to feel safe in public. At some point the desire to feel safe by carrying a gun interferes with the right to feel (and be) safe felt by others in the general public when everybody around them is packing.
this might not be the case if we didn't have such a long and bloody history of public shooting rampages. But we do. And that is the reality gun proponents always play down or ignore.

#35 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-08 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

" At some point the desire to feel safe by carrying a gun interferes with the right to feel (and be) safe felt by others in the general public when everybody around them is packing."

That sentence is very telling. It would seem that someone feeling safe trumps someone else's feeling of safety. What makes them more important?
At what point does someones fear remove your rights?

"this might not be the case if we didn't have such a long and bloody history of public shooting rampages."

Our gun crime has been falling since the 1700's. Our rampage shootings are on par with the other developed nations per capita. Or shooting that are not suicide or gang related are very rare. But it is always important to understand that of the 2000 or so a year that is out of close to 350 million people. That by itself says that if a person is to fear others being armed they are fearing something that is statistically insignificant. That fear should not be considered justified and should not be reason to remove rights.

#36 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Gang members are mostly shooting other gang members they know to be armed..."

They are also shooting other gang members that are trying to kill thgem, so some of these gang killings are just people "standing their ground" and defending themselves. They just don't make good poster boys for the NRA.

#37 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"so some of these gang killings are just people "standing their ground" and defending themselves."

Sure, and so are our soldiers. SYG is not a boogyman.
Gangs are not much different then standing armies. They are exactly the same as what we had during the range wars that caused a few areas of the "wild west" to be bloody. We are talking willing combatants not people justified in defending themselves. It is also important to not that they are not even covered by SYG if they are engaging in criminal activities, the laws are specific about that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

#38 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28 | POSTED BY RCADE

My only reply to that is this from your own state standards:

www.fdle.state.fl.us

Oddly, unless I'm reading that form incorrectly, police officers in your state are required to qualify more often with stun guns (every year) than actual firearms (every 2 years)

The firearm qualification only proves that you can hit a target from certain positions and times (here is the qualification sign off form).

www.fdle.state.fl.us

Actual scenario based training with a firearm once every 4 years is hardly being close to your comment of "training on when to use deadly force all the time", though I do believe special weapons and tactics (SWAT) train and qualify on pretty much a constant basis.

So what I suggested is actually more than the police standard of your own State regarding local law enforcement. You should be totally fine with that shouldn't you?

#39 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Defending yourself is.

Carrying a concealed gun is not a basic human right. It is a privilege that requires specific obligations to be met. If citizens aren't willing to train regularly, they must not need that loaded gun at their hip all the time.

#40 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

My only reply to that is this from your own state standards ...

I'm well aware that my state gives out CCW licenses far too easily and has weak training requirements. Over a million Florida residents have the license. How many of those people are the kind of spectacular idiots who end up in news headlines that begin with the words "Florida Man"? Too many, I'm guessing.

#41 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

If citizens aren't willing to train regularly, they must not need that loaded gun at their hip all the time."

The internet is not a basic human right even if free speech is. So if someone is not willing to train regularly they should not get to use it.

Cars are not a basic human right so if you want one you should train regularly.

Hair dryers are not a basic human right...

Of course the examples get to be ridiculous but the point is that when there is one example of facilitation of a basic human right that is the only one that is given the "special: treatment you have to wonder why. Then you apply the statistics and the reality and you come away with even more confusion as to why anyone would have such an issue. Then of course you see what the real reason is. Phobi... (avoid the thin ice an leave it there)

#42 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you are all missing the point of what he said. What I took away from his statement wasn't a necessarily a message on gun control (background checks, etc.) as much as it was about lifelong criminals being let out to go commit more crimes.

Among the suspects: a man wanted in connection with a murder who has 21 prior arrests, and another with six previous arrests, including one this year for aggravated assault for discharging a weapon.
"How this individual is out on bond is beyond me."

Note he didn't say that background checks would have stopped this, because he knows that the suspect didn't get his gun legally. I think, and it's just my opinion, that what he would really like are stiffer sentences for committing crimes with a gun, which is what I believe happens in the UK. Robbery? 5 years. Armed robbery? 10 years. Robbery with a firearm? 25 years. That sort of thing.

#43 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-08 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm well aware that my state gives out CCW licenses far too easily and has weak training requirements. Over a million Florida residents have the license. How many of those people are the kind of spectacular idiots who end up in news headlines that begin with the words "Florida Man"? Too many, I'm guessing.

#41 | POSTED BY RCADE

Except that is not for CCW, those standards are for active law enforcement and retired or separated law enforcement personnel..

Maybe you missed this part of the PDF:


Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission
Florida Officer Mandatory Retraining Requirements
Florida Officers Must Complete 40-Hours Every 4-Years to Maintain Certification

#44 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those are absurd comparisons, Sal. A gun is not a hair dryer.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Florida Officers Must Complete 40-Hours Every 4-Years to Maintain Certification

Cops go through a lot of training at the beginning of their careers in order to join the force. Retraining for them wouldn't require as much time.

Four hours a month is just 48 hours a year. One hour a month is 12. If you want a CCW license, you should be willing to spare that much time. After all, you're on the front line of the fight against future tyranny! Do you think you can defeat tyranny with absolutely no regular training?

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Those are absurd comparisons, Sal. A gun is not a hair dryer."

No of course not, the absurdity was to highlight your own. The point is that you draw a line for one thing but do cannot conceive of using that line universally. If the reason cannot be applied outside of the specific item it only makes sense that the logic should be questioned. In this case the logic proves to be non-existent. We all have things that could and are dangerous that no one would ever consider the rigorous and prohibitive measures you suggest including ones that take more innocent lives then guns by far.

#47 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Four hours a month is just 48 hours a year. One hour a month is 12."

And time and time again we have seen how this does not equate to competency in officers. IT takes far more training as you see with special teams and swat to gain the ability and keep it. But we are not talking about people who intentionally put themselves in those situations. There is a huge difference between someone who needs to do that vs someone that he never to have to use it.
All that would accomplish is putting another barrier between the right to defend yourself and the people. No real safety would be achieved as the accidental deaths by CCW holders is almost nil. So no one could argue it is about that, it can only be about what moder8 said it makes some people uncomfortable. IS your discomfort witht he idea worth limiting the 2 million or so times guns have been used to stop crimes each year by civilians? Would you be willing to let the 200,000 sexual assaults happen because those women cannot afford the time or training? Is it worth the cost for no actual gain but in the minds of those predisposed to discomfort around guns?

#48 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

The funny part is that hairdryers are obviously designed to... wait for it.... dry hair, while guns, according to gun divas, have no intrinsic design purpose, like oh say killing.

Guns are just innocent bystanders.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-08 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Cops train on when to use deadly force all the time. Why shouldn't citizens?

I only trained my company on their weapons once a year and before a rotation to combat.

Why should we put an undue burden on citizens?

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 01:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Carrying a concealed gun is not a basic human right. It is a privilege that requires specific obligations to be met.

I'll give up my right to carry concealed if you give up your right to an abortion, deal?

#51 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gun ownership isn't a basic human right.

Neither is abortion. But one of them is in the Constitution.

#52 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Gun ownership isn't a basic human right.

Neither is abortion. But one of them is in the Constitution.

#52 | Posted by boaz

To which I stated above in #3: Does anybody honestly believe that it makes any coherent sense for the Supreme Court to proclaim that the gun laws which apply to rural Arizona must also apply to inner city Chicago? (FYI: Simply parroting the words "Second Amendment" doesn't magically make such an approach coherently sensible.)

#53 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-08 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Does anybody honestly believe that it makes any coherent sense for the Supreme Court to proclaim that the gun laws which apply to rural Arizona must also apply to inner city Chicago? "

Yes, if there is to be equal protection under the law then there is no recourse. It is not the job of the supreme court to dictate policy only to rule if policy is allowable under the law. As such situational ethics should never be cause of their rulings.

#54 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

When someone says 2+2=5, the only proper response is to simply observe that they are wrong.

#55 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-08 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll give up my right to carry concealed if you give up your right to an abortion, deal?

#51 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Gun ownership isn't a basic human right.

Neither is abortion. But one of them is in the Constitution.

#52 | Posted by boaz

They are both in the Constitution.

One is covered by the right to bear arms.

The other is covered by the right to privacy.

Neither right is unlimited.

However, having said that, I would gladly give up my personal right to an abortion if you give up your personal right to a gun.

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-08 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Actually, I was being facetious/trolling, Donner. I would never give up any rights afforded to be by this great country, even the right to privacy. If you didn't know, I am pro-abortion until the 3rd trimester.

The fact you would give up a right is alarming to me.

#57 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the right to an abortion is not in the constitution as abortion didn't exist then.

#58 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

-abortion didn't exist then.

en.wikipedia.org

And they let you walk around with weapons?

#59 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-08 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"And the right to an abortion is not in the constitution as abortion didn't exist then."

Sure it did, it was called stairs.

Well that was tasteless. I should be ashamed.

#60 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ff for sala. I love poor taste jokes.

#61 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-08 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am not pro-abortion, but I fully support other peoples right to choose for themselves just as I chose for myself how I felt on the issue. I would never support having one if the baby and mother were healthy. Not my baby means not my business.

#62 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-08 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1


abortion didn't exist then.
en.wikipedia.org
And they let you walk around with weapons?
#59 | Posted by Corky

You know what I mean, dummy..

#63 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It still wasn't in the constitution, dummy..

#64 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People who are making this only about gun control are ignoring the complex nature of crime in big urban areas."

That would be Chicago's police superintendent who stated the reason for the violence is :" lax state and federal gun laws"

#65 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-08 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They are both in the Constitution.

One is covered by the right to bear arms.

The other is covered by the right to privacy."

Nice to know murder, as long as it's done in private, is a right.

#66 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-07-08 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That would be Chicago's police superintendent who stated the reason for the violence is :" lax state and federal gun laws""

In other words, it's not our fault we cant do our jobs, its always someone else.

#67 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The fact you would give up a right is alarming to me.

#57 | Posted by boaz

In case you didn't know...I am a guy...it is pretty unlikely I will ever be needing an abortion personally.

It was an easy tradeoff.

#68 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-08 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Didn't mean that Donner, although I see your point.

I have to remember a man's right to a abortion is non-existent, even though he is half the equation..

#69 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In case you didn't know...I am a guy."

Eh, i'll just leave that one alone.

#70 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Off topic, but I have nowhere else to ask this:

Why are we only granting special rights to women only? Does Roe Vs Wade extend to men as well? It would seem that, if told early enough, a man should be able to terminate for the same reasons as a woman, even if the woman wants to keep the baby. I'm sure there are times a man wanted to keep a child and the mother decided to abort.

Think a case like that has legs?

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY RCADE

"Shrug", You state why shouldn't CCW holders not have to face the same training qualifications as police then after I provide a solution that follows your state's official standards, now you want them to exceed the standards. You don't want to compromise at all which shows you're not serious about considering anyones position but your own.

Feel free to mock, but keep in mind, I don't consider myself on the front line to fight against tyranny, or even thugs in general. I just want to be able to shoot paper and clay pigeons, and hunt food (in season) when I want without being hassled by people who are too quick to judge based on the emotional baggage provided by the media.

I could care less about CCW, as I don't need it, in spite of working in a bad neighborhood. However, the state allows it, and I find it odd that people are more interested in curbing law abiding citizens rights than going after gang members who actively break the law. Would be more efficient to make gang affiliation illegal and break up the gangs.

In fact, what you and I are debating doesn't even address the issue as there are even less incidents in a CCW holder being involved in a mass shooting than there are people who just own a firearm.

Our debate is attempting to treat a condition that doesn't exist.

And I acknowledge that there have been isolated incidents, there always are, and they are tragic. But the fact is that firearm related crime has dropped 33% should tell you something. And that something is NOT that more guns = less crime as a deterrent to crime, but that having that one million so called "gun nuts" carrying weapons hasn't seemed to increased it either.

#72 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Think a case like that has legs?"

No, it's not a medical issue for men. While it may not be fair the ruling would not apply to a man. It was after all a privacy issue and as such the man does not have any rights to that information or decision according to the ruling.

#73 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Under the law, abortion is a woman's health issue. Not a parenting issue. Since an embryo is not a person (no matter how much righwingers rant and rave), there is no 'person' for the sperm donor to have any legal interest in.

#74 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-07-08 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Neither is abortion.

Roe v. Wade says otherwise.

#75 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't want to compromise at all which shows you're not serious about considering anyones position but your own.

I think there should be monthly training. You don't. Where's the compromise I'm not considering that you are considering?

I just want to be able to shoot paper and clay pigeons, and hunt food (in season) when I want without being hassled by people who are too quick to judge based on the emotional baggage provided by the media.

None of the things you like to do are affected by the gun control measures I support.

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

It would seem that, if told early enough, a man should be able to terminate for the same reasons as a woman ...

No, it wouldn't, because that would require the state to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy even if she didn't want to. It's an absurd premise that would unite pro-choice and anti-abortion people together in opposition. One side would hate the state making a choice for a woman. The other side would hate abortions being performed on willing mothers.

#77 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 03:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why are we only granting special rights to women only? Does Roe Vs Wade extend to men as well? It would seem that, if told early enough, a man should be able to terminate for the same reasons as a woman, even if the woman wants to keep the baby. I'm sure there are times a man wanted to keep a child and the mother decided to abort.

Think a case like that has legs?

Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 03:02 PM | Reply

Until men can give birth you'll have a point.

#78 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-08 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

If men could give birth, abortions would have been free and legal 5,000 years ago.

#79 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-08 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Men's rights be damned, eh guys?

#80 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 03:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

If men could give birth, women would be hunted in the wild as food.

#81 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-08 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Men's rights be damned, eh guys?

What the? Men have never had the right to force a woman to get an abortion.

#82 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#76 | POSTED BY RCADE

I think there should be monthly training. You don't. Where's the compromise I'm not considering that you are considering?

I'm ok with initial training (which they have to do to even get the get the CCW permit) as well as recertification based on the same criteria of the police. Which if you bothered to read the links provided, do not cover firearm training other than this is where you put the bullets and this is where they come out and prove you can put the majority into a target at various degree's and times. All of which are duplicated (except for the time) in the CCW requirements. As you stated, they should be held to the same standards as police. Which is what I proposed, you want to make it monthly which to me is an excess burden. Plus I don't think that citizens are required to learn crime scene investigation, DUI test requirements etc that are all part of that 80 hours which the link I provided indicates needs to be done every 4 years.

None of the things you like to do are affected by the gun control measures I support.

I see it as a sliding scale with the overall intent to try to make all firearms illegal. Otherwise why propose laws that do not address the issue at hand unless you want to later propose that these laws do nothing and we need to outlaw firearms.

I see that you made no comment on the control issues not addressing the problem or that a more sensible solution is to outlaw gang affiliation, or that with at least a million so called gun nuts running around in your state that crime rates are down 33%.. I do not mention that because I believe more guns = less crime, but in spite of your beliefs that it doesn't increase crime either.

I find it telling that you didn't address any of those comments, just the ones that apply to law abiding citizens following the law of your state.

#83 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm ok with initial training (which they have to do to even get the get the CCW permit)"

Not all state require that. Mine required only a background check and fingerprints.
Many states that do base it off firearms safety not competency.
But there is no correlation between more requirements and CCW incidents. Mainly because there is no CCW problem to speak of the very few incidents that occur have nothing to do with training as Rcade wants.
So why talk about a problem that does not exist and offer a solution to said non-existent problem?


"Otherwise why propose laws that do not address the issue at hand unless you want to later propose that these laws do nothing and we need to outlaw firearms."

Bingo. Well maybe not all firearms as they know better but definitely severely restrict them. That much at least is undeniable based on the historic actions of the control freaks.

#84 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lengthening the time between concealed carry renewals hasn't effect the CHL holders rate of crime committed. It is pretty darn stagnant. Less training didn't make it go up. It seems the example here shows us quality first is the best solution.

I think their should be a renewal period, but I believe that's being done away with entirely here. No renewal. One & done, CHL for life, like hunter's education. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be completely meaningless. We're going to find out.

#85 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-08 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm all for background checks, eliminating assault weapons, and training and scheduled checks for a CCW license, but the fact is it's Chicago, my turf.

These gang-bangers probably don't have a license of any kind and they don't usually carry assault weapons. They get their guns on the black market or steal them. In the day they made their own zip-guns.

None of that is going to go away with laws. We need to address the root cause of the problem. Until then, nothing is going to change. We need to get people off welfare and back to work. We need to rebuild the inner cities. We need to address the drug problems. We need to educate the youth properly.

#86 | Posted by path at 2014-07-08 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Good post Path..

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see it as a sliding scale with the overall intent to try to make all firearms illegal.

This is not the statement of a person who wants compromise. It's weird you scolded me for something you're unwilling to consider, because any step the U.S. could take for more gun control would give you an NRA-induced panic attack about how they're taking your guns away.

I'm already in the middle on gun issues. I opposed Chicago's ban on personal gun ownership. I support universal background checks, like the majority of Americans, and I think CCW licenses should only be given to people who are willing to prove they are responsible over the entire life of the license.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 07:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

If men could give birth, abortions would have been free and legal 5,000 years ago.

#79 | Posted by Corky

nailed it.

#89 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-08 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

We need to get people off welfare and back to work. We need to rebuild the inner cities. We need to address the drug problems. We need to educate the youth properly.

#86 | Posted by path

We need a Do Something Congress.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-08 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like how you gave 1 example of support for one side and 2 examples for your side, probably more you just didn't mention. Problem is, RCADE, willing to prove over the life of a license is just a bridge too far. It starts getting into deterring someone from exercising a right.

#91 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-08 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ironic that they restrict guns on military bases yet people want free reign for everyone everywhere else. Funny dat be.

#92 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-07-08 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Problem is, RCADE, willing to prove over the life of a license is just a bridge too far.

Asking gun owners to be responsible is always a bridge too far with some people. Why you want millions of Americans with guns at their hip and insufficient training in the use of deadly force is a mystery.

#93 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 08:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is not the statement of a person who wants compromise. It's weird you scolded me for something you're unwilling to consider, because any step the U.S. could take for more gun control would give you an NRA-induced panic attack about how they're taking your guns away.

Compromise entails both sides at a starting point and meeting in the middle, you retained your stance while I moved to the middle from the current law. That's pretty much the definition of compromise. You even stated that CCW holders should be held to the same standard as police, yet when I proposed just that, you say no. Again, even tho I informed you that I don't belong to the NRA you assign a position to me that I don't hold. I'm not a nut, I don't belong to the NRA, and

As for the comment I made about making all firearms illegal, how else would you describe laws that do nothing at all to address the issues at hand? Personally I can't think of any motive other than something to point to when it does nothing to curb the violence.

I'm already in the middle on gun issues. I opposed Chicago's ban on personal gun ownership. I support universal background checks, like the majority of Americans, and I think CCW licenses should only be given to people who are willing to prove they are responsible over the entire life of the license.


And yet you focus on the solution to a problem that does not exist and ignore the simpler solution that wouldn't affect law abiding firearm owners. Why is that? Gangs don't apply for firearm permits, let alone CCW's, so why focus on a problem that doesn't exist?

You keep calling CCW's crazy gun nuts in spite of all studies that show just the opposite. Florida has over 1 million CCW permits and have only revoked a bit over 4000, yet these are the nuts you speak of? Why do you consider them gun nuts? It's pretty clear that they are far from it.

#94 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

And yet you focus on the solution to a problem that does not exist ...

A problem that doesn't exist? Trayvon Martin, Chad Oulson, Jordan Davis and David James would disagree with you, if they hadn't been shot and killed in Florida by legally armed idiots.

Closer to home, ex-cop Nathaniel Juratovac is in prison now because he pulled out his legal gun and shot a firefighter during a road rage incident after they pulled over.

Both men had their young children in their cars at the time. I drive through the intersection where this genius opened fire all the time.

It takes willful blindness not to see that putting millions of guns in people's hands will lead to more senseless acts of violence. A lot of Americans are far too stupid to handle the responsibility of carrying a gun at their hip 24/7.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

That's pretty much the definition of compromise.

You called any new gun control measure "a sliding scale with the overall intent to try to make all firearms illegal." That's the definition of refusing all compromise.

#96 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-08 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"That's the definition of refusing all compromise."

That's the basic stance... Zero Compromise. Anything less and it's off to the Gulag.

#97 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#9 GreatAmerican: My guns didn't kill anyone over the 4th...

None of mine have ... ever. But several of them did put lots of holes in paper targets over the July 4th weekend. Afterwards they were cleaned, properly stored and a tasty meal was enjoyed by all those who participated. Fun and patriotic!

#98 | Posted by AKat at 2014-07-08 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

93. The problem is we are not talking about responsibility. We are talking about an absurd definition of responsibility that is not founded on reason. You do not get to decide what that means and put your concept on everyone. As pointed out nothing you have proposed would have any impact. You want training but that is a solution to a problem that does not exist. So you talk of responsibility and to accomplish that want to force the people who have proven by any measure that they are already far, far more responsible then the general public with arms. That cannot make sense to anyone. But it's not designed to it is a buzzword like reasonable restrictions. There has been shown time and time again that the people using that term have no idea what they are talking about. You mention compromise but compromising with lunacy benefits no one. There can be no legitimate debate in this country until both sides take an educated stance on the subject. While not everyone pro gun is capable no one in the mainstream of the control crowd has even shown an interest. So what would be the point? It should be undeniably obvious the measures proposed would have no effect. Is it worth it just to fool some into a false sense of security? No, so again it seems like the ones who actually care about solving the problem are the ones who want to focus on the cause not the symptoms and no one can claim that is the control freak crowd. You speak of responsibility to exercise the second as if that should be mandatory but why do you not feel the necessity when it comes to the first? It seems that should responsibility be important then there should be education required before speaking on the subject. I have a hard time buying that fabricating non existent problems and only a dressing a tiny fraction of a percent and propagating that as reasonable is very irresponsible.

#99 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

You cite Martin as proof for the problem? Correct me if I am wrong but are you not of the opinion that even though the prosecution could not come up with anything to dispute Zimmerman story that we just cannot be certain of what happened? So because of that and a much smaller percentage of cow people that are involved in crime there is an issue? That's like saying that because anti lock breaks make the roads safer we should limit them more. But again it is noted that you pull out the very very few in a nation of almost 350 million as an emotional appeal, is it not fair to assume that is in lieu argument based on the whole picture?

#100 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Please don't let salmongate get wound up and rehash the whole Zimmerman thing again.

#101 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-08 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

It takes willful blindness not to see that putting millions of guns in people's hands will lead to more senseless acts of violence. A lot of Americans are far too stupid to handle the responsibility of carrying a gun at their hip 24/7.

#95 | POSTED BY RCADE

Except that it hasn't. Yes there will be isolated incidences, some people are just --------, fact of life. It's tragic and senseless but no more so than a DUI or teen texter wiping out a family on the road. No solution is going to be 100%, ever, yet it is what you expect the result to be.

I'm mostly debating this to see how deep your bias goes, and I've seen enough to realize that you're more willing to make it harder on people with CCW permits even tho statistically they're less likely to break the law than gangs who are the cause most of the violence.

Even if passed, your suggestions would do little, if anything, to change that and that's the point I've been trying to make. Your fear of what "might" happen has totally blinded you to what is actually happening.

#102 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

.95

Willful blindness is what would be required to assume that while concealed carry has climbed exponentially in the last few decades and crime has decreased that there is a magic number that will reverse the historical trend. It may seem like common sense but sometimes what the initial thought brings about is proven false. Science and basic math trump gut instinct. That is important to remember in this issue.

#103 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-08 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

You called any new gun control measure "a sliding scale with the overall intent to try to make all firearms illegal." That's the definition of refusing all compromise.

#96 | POSTED BY RCADE

Nice try.

I compromised my stance from the current law, even knowing that it wouldn't address the issue and would be later pointed to as a failure, you never budged from your stance.

I was implying that laws that do not address the problem of gun violence will be considered a need for more laws. Continuing the implication is that more pointless do nothing laws will be passed until someone throws up their hands and says "oh no, no laws work, lets make them all illegal".

If you want to suggest something that actually addresses the issue, I'm fine debating that. So far you've suggested nothing at all that addresses the issue.

#104 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-07-08 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So far you've suggested nothing at all that addresses the issue."

Not true, Rcade has suggested something that makes him _feel_ better.

you have to define the issue the way a liberal does.

#105 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2014-07-09 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

#95 Rcade: putting millions of guns in the people's hands will lead to more senseless acts of violence

Except when it doesn't, which the cold hard numbers have proven for some time. U.S. sales of firearms and ammo have been at record levels since Obama first took office. Everybody from the gun control groups to the fbi to the nra and the gun/ammo manufacturers ALL agree on that. And yet the violent crime rates have not similarly exploded. And to top that, concealed carry laws have been liberalized in several states! I agree that more guns in the hands of criminals would generally lead to increases in violent crime, but the opposite is true when the number of guns in the hands of the law abiding people -- criminal don't especially like getting shot.

#106 | Posted by AKat at 2014-07-09 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...but the opposite is true when the number of guns in the hands of the law abiding people"

Not if it's just some clown buying his 5th AR-15, which is where a lot of them went.

#107 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-07-09 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

The blame should be placed on the culture and races of those that always benefit instead of on those who are always stuck paying for a prison system for most of these people.

#108 | Posted by Robson at 2014-07-09 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort