“Remember last month Chicago had the equivalent of two Sandy Hook shooting events within (sic) the city limits.” - frog
My, oh, my, Frogman, you have a penchant for distorting everything you say to your over-zealously biased view. You have no credibility attempting to discuss the merits of gun control, when your emphasis seems to be on vilifying both our President, (to whom you referred twice in your rant as “dear leader” ala other like-minded birther buffoons), as well as the “National Media”, whom you referenced 4 times with disdain, again like the Tea Party Main Stream Media nonsense. You are a one-trick pony ensconced in extremism
Stating that Chicago had “the equivalent of two Sandy Hook shooting events” would seem to infer that there were two mass murder events, totaling 54 deaths caused by assault weapons.
Obviously that is not the case. As of January 29th, in Chicago there were 43 total homicides. I don’t have the actual final numbers, but most were individual events, and most were done with handguns.
So, your way of discussing a solution to the problem is to criticize the President, the media, and any attempt to actually deal with the situation, all while clamoring for more guns for the patriotic vigilantes. You are a fool. God knows, you don’t want to do anything to jeopardize jon’s ability to sell weapons at gun shows, right, Gomer?
And you guys claim Chicago has the most rigorous gun control laws in the country. Not as it relates to bad guys’ ability to easily get guns at random, or the punishment they receive when caught with an illegal weapon. Why don’t you listen to someone who knows the situation – the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department – who incidentally is a 2nd Amendment advocate in the middle of the chaos, not some wacko demagogue like you. You want to stop gun violence in this country? Then get nutballs like you and the NRA front for the manufacturers to go after the real culprit...the endless supply of illegally obtained HANDGUNS.
In my mind, this is a far more important issue than assault weapons.
Chicago Police Superintendent: Gun Laws Play Huge Role In Lowering Gun Deaths
February 04, 2013 3:00 PM (NPR)
Garry McCarthy, the police superintendent of Chicago, favors tougher gun laws. The murder rate rose there last year even as it fell in New York. There were 506 murders in Chicago. New York had 414 with a population roughly three times the size. Superintendent McCarthy says he has a plan to fight gun violence in Chicago. It includes some familiar ideas: banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines, universal background checks as well as three-year mandatory, minimum sentences for illegal gun possession. But he told me, the one thing that would make the most difference, not only in Chicago but in the entire country, is requiring that the government be notified any time a gun is lost, stolen or transferred.
SUPERINTENDENT GARRY MCCARTHY: Because in the state of Illinois, somebody who is a legal purchaser of a firearm can go into any gun shop with their FOID card, buy firearms, walk out the door, hand them to whoever they want. There's absolutely no accountability for what happens to that gun. Now, what's the result of that? We had an officer who was shot back in March by the name of Del Pearson. He almost died. He lost three-quarters of the blood in his body. Fortunately, he survived. The gun that was used to shoot Del Pearson, there's one recorded transaction on that firearm. It was bought in Blue Island, Illinois, in 1972 by a 52-year-old woman who died in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 2006. Absolutely no record of that firearm since 1972. Where has that gun been? Was it lost? Was it stolen? Was it a store purchase? We'll never know.
SIEGEL: If somebody purchased a gun and did not report it lost or stolen and that gun then were used in a crime, should the person who owned it be held liable in some way for the use of that gun?
MCCARTHY: You know, I guess, you're posing a question that says, should I be accountable for the guns that I buy?
SIEGEL: Mm-hmm. Yes.
MCCARTHY: I would say yes, because it's pretty significant to lose a firearm that can cause the death of another. And the fact is the legal gun owner, the person who is not engaged in straw purchasing, will have an affirmative defense, and at the same time, there will not be a pattern where this person has purchased eight guns over five years and lost all five of them or eight of them.
Right now, when we recover a gun at the scene of a crime and I go back to you and I say: Robert, we just recovered your gun. And you say: Oh, thank you. I lost that. And that's the end of the story. That's unconscionable.
SIEGEL: Are law-abiding gun owners in Chicago part of the solution to law enforcement or part of the problem that you face?
MCCARTHY: I think, you know, the - I'm not ready to make a judgment on that because I support the Second Amendment. But what I am willing to say is the fact that reasonability in these gun laws is recognized by reasonable people, many of whom are gun owners. And if there were no special interests involved in this and it was put to a popular vote in this country today, I believe all of these measures would pass. They would pass muster because they're practical.
It's not saying you can't own a gun. It's saying that when you own a gun, there's accountability, and there's responsibility there. And at the same time, when you're not allowed to have a gun and you're illegally in possession of that firearm, there's a certainty of punishment, which is going to have an effect on crime rates.
Did you hear that, Froggie? Nobody’s coming after your guns. You just need to show more responsibility with them and tell jon to stop selling them to straw buyers. That’s according to Superindent McCarthy who knows considerably more than you do about the situation in Chicago...and...
...In your heart, you know he’s right.
If I wanted too I could get many weapons that are illegal including some quite potent ones. I won't mention where or how for fear some nut case under a psychiatrists care and using druges that cause them to commit these horrific crimes should read this. I have no need of such weapons so won't make any effort to procure them, unless, this government tries taking my freedoms away more than they already have. Funny how they trusted me with them while in service but now try to restrict my rights. The 2nd Amendment was NOT for hunting or personal protection but to stop would be dictators from taking control. "Executive Orders" anyone?
"Funny how they trusted me with them while in service "
What a silly comment. They gave you weapons so you could efficiently kill alot of people. That's why they give servicemembers all kinds of weapons: grenades, F-15s, nukes. Yet we don't "trust" people with them in the civilian world.
"Obviously that is not the case. As of January 29th, in Chicago there were 43 total homicides. I don’t have the actual final numbers, but most were individual events, and most were done with handguns."
I think you just made Frog's point. What difference does it make that there were nearly as many gun related homicides that were not considered 'mass' shootings? 43 is still a large number of dead and to further make his point, you stated most were handgun crimes, not 'assault' weapons.
"In my mind, this is a far more important issue than assault weapons."
Yes, the number of people killed with illegal weapons by criminals that shouldn't have access and in many cases shouldn't even be on the streets is more important than the semantic argument of the definition of the type of weapon used.
"What difference does it make that there were nearly as many gun related homicides that were not considered 'mass' shootings?"
20 dead six year olds. The particular horror of the crimes is meaningful. That's why we care about terrorism. Terrorists don't kill many people but the horror and pointlessness of the crimes have a pronounced affect on our psyche.
Handgun violence is just as important an issue--or more important. But it is also more intractable. Very few Americans want to ban handguns. But taking away guns that allow any lunatic to kill 26+ people in 2 minutes is a no-brainer. Handgun violence is not a reason to keep us from preventing the horrific crimes committed by people with assault rifles.
echo2165: You are typical of liberals. If you had the ability to reason you would not be a liberal. When you read:
“Remember last month Chicago had the equivalent of two Sandy Hook shooting events within (sic) the city limits.”
You interpreted it to mean two 27 fatality events. Any REASONABLE person reading it would understand that it meant the same total fatalities in all events rather than just two events. Your response not only indicates you can't understand what you read but also indicates that you believe all the hog wash in the MSM.
“…you can't understand what you read but also indicates that you believe all the hog wash in the MSM…” - wilkes
Why don’t you call Chicago Police Superintendent McCarthy and tell him you consider him a part of the Main Stream Media?
I can’t understand what I read? You just read a piece that said essentially that anyone still crying about the Main Stream Media is an ignorant boob, and your response goes a long way to confirming that.
Incidentally, skeezix, the issue was handguns. Do you want to discuss the actual point of the story, which you obviously didn’t read, or do you want to simply continue being goofy and making a fool out of yourself?
How to Stop the Violence in Chicago
Shut down all media except Fox, do something about the “dear leader”, and arm to the teeth every man, woman and child in Cook County.