Teen girl arraigned on murder charge

The teenage girl accused of shooting a fellow teen Monday afternoon appeared in court Tuesday to be arraigned on four counts of first degree murder.
Police say the 14-year-old John Hope High School freshman -- whose name was not released -- shot and killed 14-year-old Endia Martin in the 900 block of West Garfield Boulevard.

Teen girl arraigned on murder charge

Although the story itself is troubling, it is not really the social aspect of the murders I wish to discuss...

No...I would like to discuss the way the media (the story within the story) decided to paint the murder weapon...

The gun used in the shooting, a legal (emphasis mine).38-caliber revolver, was kept in the owner’s car but was reported stolen (emphasis mine) April 14, Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said. Police departments don’t let officers store their guns in their cars, but under the state’s concealed-carry law, individuals who are properly permitted can.

Pardon me...I would think once any item is stolen, the use of the word legal as an adjective would be an oxymoron, right?

One more ruse in the form of tail wagging dog?

a reply to: totallackey

I agree with your take, they will use anything to push the agenda, however the only time I have a gun in the car is when I am taking it to the range or hunting. I just think leaving a weapon of any type outside of the home out of your control, is asking for trouble, especially from the youth and un- initiated.

With so much tech used for rapid ID, is it not possible for some kind of lock to be fitted that could only be removed by the owners thumb print? That would make it so much safer to leave a gun in the car, but also give the OWNER quick access if they needed it!

a reply to: VoidHawk

Excellent point perhaps for another thread...

Why is the media using the term legal to describe this gun used in the shooting?

Once the gun was stolen, it is no longer legal, right?

originally posted by: totallackey
a reply to: VoidHawk

Excellent point perhaps for another thread...

Why is the media using the term legal to describe this gun used in the shooting?

Once the gun was stolen, it is no longer legal, right?

Wasn't trying to be off topic

I get what your saying, and this IS how the media conditions the masses, through very carefully chosen words!
I grew up under the influence of the BBC so I'm well aware of these tricks.

a reply to: totallackey

It most likely meant that the gun was a legal, serial numbered gun that was registered correctly in the state. I'm guessing "illegal" would mean a non-registered firearm and/or a gun with a filed serial number.

[Edit] Also, this appears to have happened in Chicago, which has limits in place on high capacity magazines. Normally this limits pistol magazines to 6-10 bullets. The legal wording could also have been referring to the fact that the gun was legal by the limit laws or all around legal (registered, meets laws and requirements, etc.).

As to the fingerprint lock thing; that's honestly pointless. The point of carrying a weapon in a car is so if you're carjacked or something comes up you can immediately respond. No one is going to want to negate that response time by putting a finger print sensor lock on their weapon, lest they just keep the gun holstered while they drive to avoid having to do so.

Pardon me...I would think once any item is stolen, the use of the word legal as an adjective would be an oxymoron, right? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, it would be. There is a limbo as to when the firearm was reported stolen-or was it simply missing? I looked that up and any use of a criminal act considers the weapon stolen regardless if it was reported or not.

Anyway, I agree there is an agenda here. Pitiful.