At least 11 shot at chicago park

reply to post by goou111


Yes, 51rst St is a gang area.

Been to this neighborhood many times several years back. The only white people in this area are either lost or buying drugs.

My first visit was a weekend trip from college with a friend to his house. He had a real nice family, but this first thing I noticed was the bars on the windows.

About an hour after we arrived, gunshots rang out and everyone dove to the floor, myself being the last to hit the floor. They said it was normal in the neighborhood. Turned out my buddy was ex-GD.

SuperFrog
reply to post by amraks

 

You got your facts a bit wrong...

Firstly, most of gun controlled laws DID NOT PASS congress, thanks to NRA lobbying.

There is no single database that lists all gun owners and guns. NRA supporters are strictly against that. Are you reading news or following debates in congress? Wake up!

Secondly, as I already posted, latest research prove what we already knew, I posted links earlier, but thanks to government not being able to function properly, there is not much done on this.

This country need gun registry very badly...

And to those telling that more people die from car accidents - we do have to register car to drive it and go through driving test before you operate car - why guns should be any different???

Did you even read what my post was mentioning.

You just proved you don't read posts of people Pro Gun agenda.

Seems like you skimmed my post looking for key words like "Statistics".

So you have basically proved to me that you never read my post it was entirely a Australia Situation I was discussing nothing to do with Congress, just stating the obvious gun laws do nothing in Australia.

So next time you read a post read it properly instead of trying to fast move your agenda.

reply to post by SuperFrog


The 18th amendment? First of all isn't part of the bill of rights, or the first 10 amendments. But that's semantics, and the topic of another thread entirely. The 18th amendment was so unpopular as to be repealed and nullified by the 21st amendment. That's the kicker. If the general populace was so unhappy about the 2nd amendment, then lets amend it! Lets come together and say no, legally. It's supposed to be difficult to infringe on other people's liberties and livelihoods, that's why new amendments are difficult to do. It's part of the process that allows the republic to function while still protecting the rights of the little guy, in effect preventing oligarchy. Don't destroy the right through bureaucracy. It sets a bad example, because it means many other amendments arem't safe from the whims and knee jerks of the mob.

The laws on the books for firearms are extremely extensive. They are probably one of the most legally controlled items in the US. If you are familiar, the checks in place to prevent certain persons from owning a firearm are there. Most new laws would be easily bypassed if the desire was there, just like they already are.

reply to post by amraks


Sorry mate, I hate it when people do that to my posts too. It's very clear your post wasn't read. I have some friends in Perth, they feel the same way you do.

thisguyrighthere
The Brady Campaign used to have a "gun violence" map on their website that backfired on them when you noticed all the hot spots were in urban areas with heavy gun control and even outright bans.

If it's still there they've hidden it.

So, instead of sharing what may be a critical piece of data in minimizing violent crime, we have a group that is more concerned with preserving their agenda than saving lives... How.. ordinary.

If we take the data the world-over, I think it shows pretty clear that there is little, if any, correlation between gun ownership per capita and violent crime per capita. Its an erroneous proposition.

However, when we look at violent crime rates of metropolitan areas versus rural, we see what may be one of the most important pieces to the puzzle of saving peoples lives.

It could be this way because of many things, but without exploration and resources that fund that exploration, we will never get anywhere. Could it be because humans are not meant to live packed like sardines? Could it be because of the significantly higher concentration of EMF in densely populated areas? Could it be because violent crimes go unreported more frequently, or less frequently, in densely populated areas?

I am not sure we will ever know, or actually start working on a solution, while the majority of the population world-wide is doing nothing but chasing the dragon.

SuperFrog

I just gut sick reading all of this this. Yes, guns are not the problem?!

Real problem here is that Chicago is unable to protect its citizens even with strict gun control, when government is unable (thanks to huge dollar supply from NRA) to create laws that will prevent unregistered gun sales here in states.

Chicago having strict gun laws does not do any good because you can still get them online, or just 30 miles in other state.

You tell us HOW to prevent unregistered gun sales. You cannot buy a gun online, UNLESS you hold a FFL or a C&R license. You can "buy" a gun, but the actual transaction must go through a local FFL holder so background checks can be done. You cannot have it mailed to you, only to a local FFL holder. As for the story you referred to in a later post, the gun was not "bought" online. The person found someone who wanted to sell a gun in an online posting on ArmsList.com. They agreed on a price, then met and completed the sale, the same as someone placing an ad in a newspaper would do. This is a private sale, and is not subject to a background check. In addition, most states don't allow gun sales to out of state purchasers. Hard enough to keep track of your own states laws, much less any others. Some do allow them, but they are few and far between.

As a Chicagoan.... Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

Chicago, #1 Murder Capital in America... I'm not that proud of that title...

reply to post by Galvatron


So where we getting is conclusion that if someone can affect people opinion through expensive advertisement campaign (in this case NRA), it is legal to adjust law, because all people take it personally and thus it is unpopular.

Wonder, why this simple view of politics does not work well with our government, because if it does, congress would not pull 'get rid of Obama care' again, after so many different tries.

I am glad we can have simple civilized conversation about this... will not even try to answer rest of 'I have my right' folks. It is pointless...

reply to post by Serdgiam

According to the 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States,metropolitan areas have 79 percent more violent crimes than other American cities and 300 percent more violence than rural areas.

Source

reply to post by Galvatron


Yup many Australians do.

Also like to mention to super frog our gun registers database is accessible to any police officer anonymously and doesn't log who has checked these records.
Now if a corrupt law enforcement wanted to make some quick money they could sell information of gun owners to criminals.
The facts are on there, where they keep their ammo and guns.
Also like to add this is happen, each week there is a guns stolen, right out of the arms of people who have just registered new guns.

Just goes to prove that this "Gun Registrar" is not working and has come with flaws that make us worse off than before.

TKDRL
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

According to the 1994 Statistical Abstract of the United States,metropolitan areas have 79 percent more violent crimes than other American cities and 300 percent more violence than rural areas.

Source

Thank you very much TK. Off to read. It does seem a bit older, but I am not sure the core issues in violent crime have changed much even over thousands of years. Only thing that has changed is the tools used, and I think by ONLY addressing the tools, we almost subconcsiously accept the violence if specific "tools of dread" are not used or involved.

Maybe one day, we can actually work together to address goals that will benefit ALL of us. Especially considering there are solutions that can appease any and all sides.

Ill give input on the article in a bit. Not that many will actually approach violent crime as a whole..

reply to post by SuperFrog


You have failed to prove to me why you feel the way that you do, other than its the way you feel. Every example that you've attempted to use to prove your feelings has been thoroughly refuted and or addressed in this thread by me or others. I'm beginning to think you're reaching the limit of your capacity to argue this one. All I see is "I feel this way because my opinion is this way because I feel this way".

As for the NRA stuff and expensive advertising, did you not understand my analogy? How would you feel if there was an amendment that stated that US citizens have the right to free wifi. Then you had politicians defy their constituency at every turn in order to pass law to undermine that right. A lobby group formed that advocated your right and happened to be funded by various internet providers. How would you feel about a lobby group supported by both citizens and corporations lobbying for explicitly written constitutional guarantees? Just because the guarantee is different, I bet you think lobbying for one is somehow ethical while lobbying for the other is somehow not.

Here is some News relating to Australia's gun registrar.

AN East Coast woman robbed of thousands of dollars worth of guns from her remote property soon after the weapons were registered is calling for answers from Police Commissioner Darren Hine.

"All nine guns listed were stolen that night. They didn't bother going into the house or taking the tools, electrical equipment or anything else of value stored in those sheds. They went straight to the safes, got the guns, went to the building where the ammunition was stored in a locked box and took that. "They knew exactly what they were doing and they didn't damage anything they didn't need to. From what everyone's saying, that's what happens every time."

They knew where to go didn't they..

The firearms included a Savage .22 Magnum and other powerful rifles, as well as a 12-gauge shotgun -- the preferred weapon in Tasmania's recent spate of drive-by shootings.

What we never had any drive by shootings in Tasmania before National Gun Registrar.

www.themercury.com.au...

reply to post by TKDRL


That was a good study, though their application of some variables seemed a bit.. wobbly.

Regardless, it brought up some aspects that I had not considered, even though in hindsight they seem rather obvious.

It basically came to the conclusion that crime in cities is higher because of less risk, higher profit, and crime just being "easier" in general.

It leaves a lot of unanswered questions though, specifically, how do we address the issue if it is systemic to an urban environment? I suppose the study doesnt address solutions at all though, as it didnt seem to be the point of the study.

Some other aspects that I personally consider are everything from perception of time (formulated by pace of atmosphere change in every day life) to effects of signals in the air on the human body. I can even see a physical mimicry of the subtle attitude that pervades the highest levels of business and governance. I think those start to delve into deeper issues though, and may be too broad even as off topic as threads like these become.

So, what solutions can we enact to reduce violent crime in general? And, if crime reduction is the supposed goal of gun control lobbyists, why isnt it an active part of their actions?

Serdgiam

So, what solutions can we enact to reduce violent crime in general? And, if crime reduction is the supposed goal of gun control lobbyists, why isnt it an active part of their actions?

Simply reducing population densities would go a long way to reducing all crime. I dont mean reducing population. I mean discouraging people from packing themselves into urban centers like sardines.

Unfortunately this runs counter to the governments desire to lure everyone they possibly can into densely populated urban areas.

reply to post by Serdgiam


To put it really simple, to reduce violence, we need to elevate people's happiness. Fear and anger are the causes of violence, both of those are abundant in the world these days, especially in densely populated areas. I also think it is done on purpose, through brainwashing by the media, videogames, music, etc. We cannot look to our governments to solve the problem though, as the people that make up our governments are a major cause of the problem to begin with

TKDRL
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

To put it really simple, to reduce violence, we need to elevate people's happiness.

As I said pages ago.

Good paying Jobs would be a start.

reply to post by sonnny1


Absolutely, I can attest to that one. I knoww a lot of what used to be the content middle class construction worker is very angry right now. They are busting their ass, and barely making ends meet. They don't see any light at the end of the tunnel, myself included. My meditations, workouts and artwork are a valuable outlet I have, if I didn't have them, I would have gone postal years ago I think.

sonnny1

TKDRL
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

To put it really simple, to reduce violence, we need to elevate people's happiness.

As I said pages ago.

Good paying Jobs would be a start.

The only way I see that happening (creating and holding good paying jobs) would be to repeal NAFTA and raise the tax burden on corporations that outsource the work to nations with a cheaper workforce. I know this first-hand, as I was "laid-off" recently since my job went to those in India who can work at 1/2 of my salary here (and I had to train them to do it, and they do it badly as well, but, it's "cheaper"). This was the second time this has happened to me personally. The last time was 20 years ago only it was China that time (and I had to train them as well).

thisguyrighthere
Simply reducing population densities would go a long way to reducing all crime. I dont mean reducing population. I mean discouraging people from packing themselves into urban centers like sardines.

First off, I do agree. However, I am not sure this is feasible. Some people claim to truly love living in a large city environment. I do not personally understand it, as suburbs feel too "hustle bustle" to me, but I think its at the very least a strong and encouraged habit for millions of people.

Unfortunately this runs counter to the governments desire to lure everyone they possibly can into densely populated urban areas.

Agenda 21, as I mentioned earlier, has this exact plan in mind. Lots of conspiracies surround the topic, and it has become obscured. Most people outright dismiss it (even though its right on the UN website), and if they even give it a cursory glance they see the words "green! sustainable! good!" and automatically accept it.

A deeper read of the actual Agenda (available directly from the UN, for a cost) is quite enlightening to many mysterious aspects of the politics of the last few decades..