It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Five hurt in Chicago high school shooting

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Five hurt in Chicago high school shooting


www.independent.co.uk

Five people were shot as spectators left a crowded high school basketball game in what police said may have been a gang-related attack.


Terrified youngsters fled into a snowy street on the city's South Side after five males - three in a serious condition and two critically injured - were shot at Paul Laurence Dunbar Vocational Career Academy - actress Jennifer Hudson's old school - at around 8pm yesterday, local time, said Chicago Fire Department spokeswoman Eve Rodriguez.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
What is it with Americans, guns and schools. If there was ever a reason to have better gun contriol killing kids in schools has to be that reason. How anyone csn still argue that they have a right to all manner of weaponry when there is no obvious need for it defies credulity.

Allwoing the masses to go around armed does not achieve any purpose than the continuance of more death and murder.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Why is it that people blame guns rather than criminals for criminal acts involving guns? That makes no sense. I carry a gun, I don't run around shooting people. I have saved myself and a few others having this gun, and should the SHTF I will be prepared to fight and to hunt.

Gang bangers shoot each other all the time, and sometimes people get hurt who are not intended targets. That does not mean that law abiding gun owners should be shafted because of what criminals do.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The MSM will probably be all over this story in no time. This is exactly what the people advocating a total gun ban are looking for. I completely agree with projectvxn, there will always be people engaging in criminal activities. Whether they use guns or knives or other things to committ these crimes really doesn't matter. If you read about a person who was stabbed to death in the newspaper, you probably wouldn't advocate a complete ban of kitchen knives, would you?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Knives are a completely different matter as that have a variety of every day uses a gun does not. Any firearm has one purpose and that is to kill, it does not have any other purpose. And I did not say or advocate banning guns I said the control of them. More Americans die every year because of guns and there is no rational what so ever to have them lawfully or not.

To continue to say its the right of citizens is incorrect when the law states that it is the right to form armed militias in times of conflict.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


So you don't think protecting your family is a valid reason to own a gun? If someone breaks into your house trying to steal everything you have and maybe even physically harm you and your family you should be able to protect yourself. If a fatal shot is what it takes to stop the intrudor then that's the way it is. But don't tell me the only purpose of a gun is to engage in criminal activities. If you have to kill someone in order to protect yourself, I personally don't think it's wrong or even criminal.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Knives are a completely different matter as that have a variety of every day uses a gun does not. Any firearm has one purpose and that is to kill, it does not have any other purpose. And I did not say or advocate banning guns I said the control of them. More Americans die every year because of guns and there is no rational what so ever to have them lawfully or not.


the righteous man grabs the knife and slits the pipe. i myself carry a box cutter and a 38 special im only 17... this gov't cant control this economy how can they control guns?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Yes there is a rationale. And that is the government. If this country becomes a police state like the UK, or falls victim to utter despotism, then I want to be armed and extremely dangerous. Yes the purpose of guns are to kill, but it is not guns themselves that kill, it is people. Period. A gun does not have a mind of it's own.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
It is a myth that if the people are not armed then they have no means to fight. history is replete with events of such. The fact remains that no one is sying that they do not have a right to protect themselves, their families of propwerty but its about how you do that and about escalation. In America it is the norm to carry guns therefore one would expect to have to face them to say you want guns to protect your family is crap. Most people would not even use thsoe weapons in such situations and when they have they have miss used them and illegaly so.

What we are talking about is gun control, anyone who thinks they can take on their military with the arms they have are dreaming. No this is more about men and women who get a hard on about owning and having guns. Its all Americans ever talk about, guns guns and more guns. One has to only look at Ameican society to see what guns have done to it over the years.

Fact more Americans are killed by fellow Americans using guns than any terrorist. Americans with guns don't take on their Government or anyone else no they just shoot and kill each other which gives you an indication of the brain capacity of the average American. Americans need guns to protect themselves from their fellow Americans, not the Government, Police or the Military which again points to the mentality of the average gun owning American.

On a side note look in the Survival thread here on ATS. Its a survival thread yes and what is it filled with, Americans banging on about their guns their ammo and how many they have. When you understand that guns don't equate to survival then you will understand.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
i got news for you magicmushroom, guns have been BANNED in chicago since 1982, looks like the criminals followed the law once again.


gun bans dont work. ANY place they are instituted crime rises, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

dont you find it mildly ironic that the places with the most gun crime is the same places that have the strictest gun laws???

there are hundreds of examples of "gun free" places where people were not allowed to have a gun opened fire and killed alot of people... i cant remember the last time there was a mass killing at a gun range, NRA meeting, or gun show.


'' As with all gun-control laws, the question is ultimately whether it is the law-abiding citizens or criminals who are most likely to obey the law."



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Magic, I really don't think you understand American culture at all. You're either not American or from California.

I'm very liberal. But there are two things I am very conservative about, money, and guns. In California, New York, DC, and Chicago, the strictest gun laws are imposed on law abiding citizens, and yet they have the highest crime rate involving guns in the WHOLE nation. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas have among the lowest gun crime rates in the nation, with Colorado, and Texas having "Shall Issue" laws in place for CCW(Concealed Carry permits).

What does that tell you? Being armed does not make one dangerous, being a criminal does.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Magic - The breaking news in your case is simply a venue to express your negative opinion about weapons in America. No big surprise there. There is one in every crowd.
And as mush as I do not care to engage your prattle, I'll give you two examples of a weapon being present to prevent a crime. I have a concealed weapons permit. This requires an FBI/CBI background check. 2PM I go to p/u meds for my Son. Three guys attempt a strong armed robbery. I pulled back my jacket , place my hand on said weapon and they apparently assumed correctly that I was armed. They left.
3PM walking back to my home with my son ( who was unable to run due to Downs syndrome ) Two people confronted me with a drawn knife. Again hand on gun, one of them saw it and said " HE HAS A GUN " they left. I can only speculate they went looking for someone more willing to become a victim. Perhaps someone like you. So frankly MaGiC,
I could give two spits about your OPINIONS.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I own guns and there's nothing you can do about it.

Why?

Because I'm the one with the guns.

All manner of logic and reasoning has been laid before you gun grabbers time and time again, but your type always responds with knee-jerk, over-emotionalized reactions to the behavior of a small minority of gun owners.

There's no more room for debate, so it boils down to this:

It's not up for discussion anymore. We have our guns, and anyone who wants to take them better be bullet proof. Period.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


I guess you didn't realize that Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It hasn't helped much. If memory serves, Chicago took over the title of murder capital of the US a few years back.

The areas of the United States most prone to gun violence tend to be the ones with the most restrictive gun laws and those areas are usually cities. Gun bans are a well-proven failure where they've been tried in the US. I've seen no reason to believe that they'd be any less of a failure if attempted nationwide.

The vast majority of the 100 million gun owners in this country are responsible, law-abiding citizens. There's no reason to punish them for the actions of a bunch of criminals and gang-bangers in the cities who will not be deterred by whatever gun control law you want to pass.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
There should be a higher minimum age to own a gun. It should be something like 21. Children in high school should not have to worry abotu the protection afforded by a firearm. Their parents should be ensuring their safety. They shouldn't be allowed to go into dangerous neighborhoods in the first place, where other people might threaten them with guns. Any threat to a child's security should be the parents fault. They need to take responsibility primarily. They shouldn't be forced to think about their safety at all times.

Second, you should be required to undergo a psychological examination before acquiring a gun license. It would be fairly relaxed, nevertheless, if a person is willing to go through a simple procedure such as this already proves their own maturity, and temperance. You should have to give up a little comfort or liberty, or whatever you want to call it, for the responsibility of owning a gun. A psych test isn't too demanding.

Those two things is all that's necessary. The only controls regarding gun ownership should be small procedures such as those. Restricting physical access to firearms to all people will only encourage a black market, thus leading to an exorbitant increase in the rate of criminality. There's no solution other than filtering out people that wouldn't behave properly with a gun.

Owning a gun isn't a birthrate, it's own given to you by society, by the Constitution. If you're not a responsible, hard working, positive member of society, then you don't deserve to use one, no matter what you might think of your "natural liberties".

[edit on 10-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Its already illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun. You can buy a shotgun or rifle at 18, depending upon state laws. For my part, I think its fine as it is. If an 18 year old is old enough to fight in a war, he or she is old enough to own a firearm back home.

I can't agree with a psychological test, as this could be used as a means to wrongly deny people the right to purchase a firearm. Its much like those permits to own handguns in certain cities. Sure, you can buy a handgun if you're approved, the only problem is, the city office responsible for issuing them is *always* out of permit forms. Yes, some cities do that. By contrast, I think the current system of denying past offenders and those with known mental issues is adequate.

And one more point: the Constitution does not grant rights. It protects them. Your right to bear arms was indeed considered a birthright by its authors, much as the freedom of speech, religion, etc, are.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 



all the things you call for would not deter underage or maniac people from getting weapons.
do you really think that having to be 21 (which is the case in most states already) or an evaluation would make a difference to a gang member?
making regular folks jump through hoops to get guns has no effect on those who will acquire those weapons illegally anyways.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
If you want to keep guns out of the hands of nutbags, the solution isn't to try (and fail) to get guns off the streets. The solution is to get the nutbags off the streets.

Shouldn't that be common sense?

Very rarely does anyone start their life of crime off with a shooting. It usually starts with drug use, petty theft, fighting, gang membership, etc.

The problem isn't too many guns. The problem is too many criminals. Too many plea bargains. Too many second chances that weren't earned.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


While the amendment is grounded deep in English common law history, and despite its heavy romanticization, there was a clear lack of policy making when deciding to allow civilians to own mechanized arms at the time of the amendment's authoring. Simply put, guns are too discreet and they kill too easily.

English Protestants were granted the right to bear arms. They had weapons, which could be used in the case of tyranny and oppression by an illegitimate ruling power, or if society were to collapse due to famine, pestilence, etc. You have to remember that these laws were implemented only a century or two after the English Civil War. The country's rulers were always in a state of change at the time. A Catholic King gets in power, there were mass killings of Protestants, and the same vice-versa. There was still a vivid memory of the English Civil War during the 17th and 18th centuries. While the memory wasn't a living one, it had great implications in all of English society, most importantly in law.

I understand how the Founding Fathers viewed natural liberties. I'm very well read in that area. However, you have mistaken the term I provided, "society", with something along the lines of "groupthink" or "mobocracy", whereby the group or the hierarchy decides what rights an individual may have. The Founding Fathers were well aware of that, and their resentment for such thinking is clear in their writings, especially in their rejection of the democratic methods of the ancient Greeks. However, I still don't believe gun ownership has anything to do with "natural liberty".

The rights of socialized individuals are very different than natural individuals. You essentially must give up behavior that you might have benefited to engage in before you were subject to the moral conduct inherent in society and the law. One's rights only go so far as to include those, which cannot pose any harm on another individual, or those which must be restricted in order for the proper, benevolent functioning of society under God. Consensus between members of society, and members of society alone, provide the basis for which morality is founded, and the structure for which behavior is modeled around.

While you are born with the right to defend your own life at all costs, using a gun to do so gives you certain advantages over others. Adding a provision for the right to bear mechanized arms is implicit in the authors' inability to form policy, which might be relevant in the future.

Anyway, historically speaking, the amendment provided an anticipatory measure in the face of the great secession of the Civil War. Its history was heavily romanticized by the militia movement in the 1960's. Whether the Founding Fathers ever held the view that gun ownership was pivotal for "the rightful insurrection of men against tyrants" are highly disputed in the American History academia. It could very well be entirely propagandized fiction.

Regarding the psych test. I'm pretty sure it would stop middle class teenagers living in the suburbs from finding a way to purchase a firearm without having to go downtown or see some shady underground dealer. That might elicit the attention of their parents... not to mention they wouldn't last a minute in those neighborhoods without being jumped themselves. I realize that if you want to go on a rampage across school, if that is truly your ultimate desire, your demand for acquiring a means to inflict harm on your schoolmates is highly inelastic, meaning you will pay whatever cost, or go to any length to acquire that end. Unfortunately for them, policy measures such as these might inhibit their ability to pursue their aims as easily as picking up a gun from Walmart.

Anyway, I understand policy isn't really a good idea. It can't solve many issues without infringing upon the freedoms of a large subset of respsonsible, healthy individuals. However, if the gun-toting libertarians had any concern for society then you would expect that they advocate some kind of solution. If the root of the problem is bad people, why not provide the social and educational institutions, as well as the welfare provisions to ensure that individuals aren't allowed to grow up into "bad people". What's even more hypocritical is how those same libertarians go "up in arms" as soon as the government decides to raise taxes. The very same taxes that go to schools and social programs, which benefit society at its most basic foundations.

By admitting that there will always be bad people, and by not even attempting to provide positive policy solutions, they are damning 14,000 children to death from gun related injuries or assault every year.

The Libertarian Party of America doesn't even address the problem. They blame "bad people", yet they themselves have produced nothing to address gun proliferation into the hands of those "bad people". I just can't respect a party or even a general belief system that doesn't take a stab at both sides of the problem.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by cognoscente]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join