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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom


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)



Some of you will never understand that most of these shootings are done with unregistered guns that were not bought at a gun shop!

So please tell me with your reason and logic, how banning all gun ownership would work??



No suspect has been identified or arrested, but the shooting was "isolated" and possibly gang-related, Mr Weis said. Two hundred officers were in the area looking for suspects, he said.


Blame the damn criminal not the gun. Because those thugs are carrying around guns illegally anyways
They are not walking aroud with CWL. And those people who do walk around with a CWL are not the ones out there shooting up innocent people.

And I will repeat what was said earlier: Chicago has one of the most strict gun laws in the country - and it doesnt do ANYTHING to stop the thugs!



[edit on 1/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


That's a very well thought-out post, I hope some moderator gives you an applause. I agree completely that more money should go towards social programs that give people a better chance at rising above a life of crime.

You mentioned tax increases, and questioned why people get upset when taxes are raised. I, for one, would not get upset by increased taxes if the money would be spent wisely. The problem I see isn't necessarily the taking of our money, it's the misuse of it.

Our money goes to silly things like pork barrel projects, ever-increasing salaries for the government, and bailout programs for businesses that have utterly failed to remain relevant.

Meanwhile, funds that are set aside to "help society" end up being misspent on a flawed welfare system that traps people on government money. Other money that actually gets set aside for schools becomes lining in the pockets of teachers' unions. Less and less of it goes towards job creation, community revitalization projects, and school supplies.

If the government would use our money wisely, they probably wouldn't need to raise taxes. And if they were investing it in the country's future instead of the country's elite, the could probably actually afford to lower them.

Sadly, there are always going to be people who won't conform to society. It's quite simply not feasible to let those people loose on the public. When somebody is convicted of a crime, there needs to be a decision made between three choices, which I'll get to in a moment.

First, I want to state that those people - the ones who cannot obey fair laws, who are opposed to proper justice, and who show a disregard for society - should not be raising children. Period. If you commit a violent crime, or a major theft or fraud, then you should be required to surrender your children to the care of somebody with higher moral standards than yourself. Future children should not be allowed to remain in your custody after birth.

Gangsters raise gangsters. Violent people raise violent kids, who end up committing violent crimes. We need to stop assuming that unfit people can be fit parents - they can't be, and when we think they can, we condemn their children to grow up as part of the problem.

Now, as promised, I think we should use the following three ways to handle these criminals:

1. Help them. Drug users are the best example of this. They shouldn't be sitting in cell blocks. Who does that help? The drug user becomes hardened and further isolated from the norms of society, and society must then cope with that person after their inevitable release. Instead of incarceration, mandatory rehabilitation should be the sentence. It's also important that society rethinks what should constitute a "drug offense," but that's completely off topic for now.

2. Punish them. Violent criminals, career thieves, and sexual predators are the scum of society. I understand that everyone makes mistakes, but when you are convicted of a crime that harms society or someone else in it, you should do serious time. Judges have far too much leniency to let people go with light sentences. Somebody who gets thrown in jail for pickpocketing shouldn't be let out a month later. That takes the risk that they will move on to mugging or armed robbery. Following the punishment, they should be given a short period of time to relocate. Letting them continue to live in the same neighborhoods, with the same bad influences, just encourages them to slip back into the same criminal lifestyle.

3. Remove them. Repeat offenders wander our streets daily. Why can they do this? They are repeat offenders. By the very definition, they will commit crimes again. Many people hail the "three strikes" policy as a way to crack down on repeat offenders, while others claim it is a major policy failure. It's shortcoming is the fact that it still lets repeat offenders out. It gives them a chance to repeat their offense, even after they've shown no willingness to stop their offending. After the second felony, it's time to do life behind bars (or fry.) People may say that this would lead to high incarceration rates, but that would be a temporary issue if criminals weren't being left to raise future generations of criminals.

Perhaps my ideas are flawed. Maybe they are too draconian for today's society. I don't know, and I'd be willing to embrace better ideas if they were presented to me. What I do know is this: If my options are to go after criminals or go after guns, I'll be choosing to go after criminals every time.

There's simply no reason to assume that disarming law-abiding citizens will protect them from law-violating criminals. Simply observing what has happened in cities where this has been attempted prove the failed logic of such policies.

I just have to disagree with one thing: Psychological evaluations for gun buyers. This merely serves as a major inconvenience for law abiding citizens. In addition, consider the following.

When setting up the judicial system, our government made it the duty of the prosecutor to provide the burden of proof against a defendant. In a civil case, the plaintiff must provide a preponderance of evidence against the defendant. These truths indicate that our country's justice system is founded on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty, as we all know.

I think it would be a disgrace to force people to prove their sanity in order to exercise their right - and I do say right, because the amendment is titled "the right to bare arms" - to bare arms. If evidence against their sanity is already available, then by all means, that person should not be armed.

However, the law-abiding citizen, who has done no wrong and displayed no past psychological problems, should not be the ones who are targeted by attempts to stop gun violence. They are, quite simply, not the ones committing the gun crimes.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I never get tired of:

"ban guns!"

Well, in Chi-Town they are. Did alot of good, huh?

"We need age limits, like 21"

Law is already on the books. Did alot of good, huh?

Just in case you didnt know there is and has been for quite some time now a law against murder. That ones working great.

For a little sad irony for out brothers across the pond:

Anti-gun Activist Stabbed to Death

What's the matter? Don't you guys have laws against stabbing people to death over there? What a sick culture you must have. Geez.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:42 PM
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.

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.


Someone has probably already said this, but being from the area origially i can tell you that more gun control won't fix anything.

It is already damn near impossible to get a handgun in illinois. The guns that were gotten were gotten illegally and used illegally by t people using them. Go ahead and ask for more gun control, but you can't get more control in that area unless you ban them alltogether.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by cognoscente
 


I just have to disagree with one thing: Psychological evaluations for gun buyers. This merely serves as a major inconvenience for law abiding citizens. In addition, consider the following.

When setting up the judicial system, our government made it the duty of the prosecutor to provide the burden of proof against a defendant. In a civil case, the plaintiff must provide a preponderance of evidence against the defendant. These truths indicate that our country's justice system is founded on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty, as we all know.

I think it would be a disgrace to force people to prove their sanity in order to exercise their right - and I do say right, because the amendment is titled "the right to bare arms" - to bare arms. If evidence against their sanity is already available, then by all means, that person should not be armed.

However, the law-abiding citizen, who has done no wrong and displayed no past psychological problems, should not be the ones who are targeted by attempts to stop gun violence. They are, quite simply, not the ones committing the gun crimes.


This is the one response I knew I was going to get. It's also the strongest. Believe me, I didn't make my post expecting not to receive it. While many will outright disagree with me, I still believe that for one to reason based on grounds of constitutionality alone simply provides sustenance to a serious flaw. The next response I expect to get is something along the lines of "you are entitled to your opinion". I have to say in advance that such a response would be totally insufficient for an issue as important as the right to bear arms.

There is always the excuse that inhibiting particular rights, such as that to bear arms, will marginalize law-abiding citizens who seek to assume such rights, and who believe they deserve them.

So I will propose a Categorical Imperative of sorts to address this issue. If great attention to any public policy measure should arise, which might when implemented, as well as provide increased security to the greater population, inhibit the rights of healthy, responsible civilians access to certain activities, then such activities can be deemed unacceptable in their current convention, and must be given either legal attention, or be subject to policy reform. If a right such as bearing arms is inhibited, but it marginalizes regular, law-abiding citizens, you can see where the activity itself, not to mention its protection, is primarily flawed. What I'm essentially getting at is the very fact that desiring to own a gun should imply some kind of psychological conditioning, which is either harmful to society or originated in some sort of fear produced by society itself. The latter is more likely. So I don't see where a simple psych examination should place a burden on anyone. Other than fear, there really is no rational reason to purchase a gun. The belief that you should own one just in case for the future is kind of off-course.

If there were some type of measure to inhibit the freedom of speech or mobility, for example, because there were too many criminals moving about and speaking too much, and it affected law-abiding individuals at the same time, then I'm sure you would be outraged. The same would go for me. I just don't see that every happening, but it just doesn't seem like such a stretch for an issue such as gun control. While it is similar in principle, pragmatically the ideas could never be more far apart. Attention was raised to this issue for a reason.

While I do not disagree with gun ownership per se, I still see that it is simply a highly romanticized historical endeavor that has not historically speaking brought any benefit to the people that have endorsed such a right. Gun ownership apparently has its benefits. Many people desire them, for whatever personal reason. However, I just don't see the entire solution being in the minimization of criminality.

If government fails, especially in this day and age (being the information age after all) then it is at the fault of the citizenship, and any tyranny should be well deserved. Even if some people are not at fault, their suffering is warranted because of their lack of personal political involvement and sacrifice to stop such tyranny. A functional Democracy relies on active public involvement. This is critical.

In the past English peasants couldn't help malevolent dictators, who were not elected by the people, from massacring and stealing from them. When we are in control of our government, this fear should not be so vivid. IF we are in fear of our government, then society really must be off balance, it must already be heading off track. But then it must be too late and so we realize there is nothing we can do but wait for this great experiment to derail.

Uhh... sorry for the lack of writing quality. It's very late.

"We have staked the whole of all our political
Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and
all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to
The Ten Commandments of God."

What relevance James Madison's quote has I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like it fits.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Guns don't kill too easily.

People kill, and it is easy with or without the gun.

I was trained as a martial artist. I could kill without ever even making a sound. I don't actually NEED a gun everywhere I go and I only carry depending on what I'm doing and where I'm going. That said, my first reaction at the first sign of trouble is NOT to pull the gun but try to defuse. If that doesn't work I use my hands or my stungun/taser, and if a firearm or baseball bat is pulled on me I start firing.

All that said, I am non-violent by nature. I don't beat people up for calling me names, I don't even make threats. So long as one does not try to harm me or my loved ones. I am a law abiding citizen, always have been always will be.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Few people are trained sufficiently in the martial arts. Why do we cling so ferociously to principle. We revoke pragmatism when it is needed most.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join