Proposed Gun Shop In Niles Faces Opposition
Source: CBS Chicago
Four schools are close to the site of a proposed gun shop and range in suburban Niles.
… Goldberg can see New Hope Academy from the spot that could soon house a gun shop and firing range — if Niles officials approve the plan.
“I thought that that was just a recipe for tragedy,” she says.
... and others say the gun shop is a bad idea not just because of its proximity to New Hope — a school for children with emotional disabilities — but because it would also be within walking distance of Niles West and Central high schools and Orchard Academy.
Read more: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/23/proposed-gun-shop-in-niles-faces-opposition/
A gun shop and range next to a therapeutic school for emotionally troubled kids and walking distance to several other schools including a high school. Who would think this is a good idea after so many school massacres?
= new reply since forum marked as read
The actual homicide rates have been dropping for children for decades. Here is some reports since 1993:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
According to FBI statistics, since 1993 murders in the US has DROPPED from 25,596 to 14,827 even as the population increased from about 250,000 to over 300,000 people:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls
Homicide rates dropped drastically from 1994 to 2000, then had held steady since 2000:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_trends.html
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_trends_sex.html
Sorry, more guns does not seem to indicate more killing of school children. More such shootings are reported now a days but that does not mean more shootings are occurring. The rate of killing of people under age 24 has DROPPED since the early 1990s and for people younger then 18 has dropped even more.
I remember the days before the daily lottery where the National News Shows all gave the Wall Street trading index to the third decimal. This three digit number was a random number, meaningless even then EXCEPT TO BOOKIES. In the days before the "Daily number" that three digit number was what the numbers runners used for their numbers game. The three digit was a random number. When National Network stopped giving that number to the third decimal point, enough TV viewers switched to the other networks to get that three digit number to affect the rating of each news program. Thus the three digits passed the decimal point was given till most states had something like the "Daily Number" that gave a similar random number and the bookies switched to using it instead of the Wall Street Number.
I bring the Wall Street Number up for it shows that the New Network, will post what news it thinks will bring in the most rantings, and right now that includes school shootings. Thus you HEAR of them more today then even just 20 years ago. I remember my High School Days, someone blew up a locker with explosives? Did it make the news? No, the School was not even closed do to the explosion. Thus it is not listed on lists of school explosions, but it did happen. Thus a list of school shootings is just an meaningless, each incident is a tragedy, but a list proves nothing more then such tragedies occur. This is why we have to look at the Statistics, and right now it is showing a constant decline in such killings. Thus your premise is false and by holding on to it, you open yourself to attacks based on the fact your premise is not supported by facts.
Now, if you want to try to track down all of the school shootings to show the connection you want, I have no problem with that, but you have to go back and check on every murder of someone below age 18 since WWII. You eliminate the ones killed by parents and other relatives. You eliminate Children killed by gang members and other illegal groups. Then you have a pool of murder victims that can be shown to be the result of the fact guns exists and firearm ownership has increased. I suspect no one has done this for most killings of children below age 18 tend to be cases kept confidential do to the age of the people involved. It is only since the 1990s has various State Legislature has changed the laws to permit trial of Children below 18 as adults. Those late cases would be public, but cases where the local law enforcement agency decided to treat the murderer as a juvenile since the 1990s and in those cases before 1990s, you will have no access to. Thus no facts to support your premise even as the FBI does take into its Database the ages of victims of Murder (We do not know if that number involved children in schools or out of school, thus hard to put a number on school shootings).
Just a warning, that such a study can be done, but you will need the cooperation of not only the FBI but local courts. Have fun trying to get that data.
Please note we do need to reduce the number of school shootings, but I suspect that includes increase mental health funding that no one wants to pay for (Even the NRA has come out for increase mental health treatment, but ignores the issue of how to pay for it, for the NRA's allies within the GOP do not want to raise taxes to pay for such programs). Increase security around the school, tends to lock in Children for the shooters as opposed to giving them ways to get out (in the case of the Culumbine School Shooting the Police procedure was to contain the shooters in the school, even if that meant potential victims were also stuck in the school. This reflected a view that any terrorist in taking a school wanted NOT to kill the Children but to use them as hostages to force the police to negotiate about something else. The problem was the school shooters wanted to kill students in that school NOT negotiate with the police thus they plan to contain the shooters actually helped the shooters).
Columbine should have been a warning to more schools to permit emergency exits of students, but the tread has been to restrict exits, for by restricting entrances you restrict the ability of outsiders coming into the school. Most restrictions of exits reflect a fear of drug dealers entering the school as opposed to shooters. Smaller schools also mean less targets at any one location, but school districts hate such small schools for if a teacher is sick harder to get another teacher to cover.
Thus the problem of school shooting tend not to be addressed. Mental health expenditures are something no one wants to pay for. Making Schools smaller is also disfavored for you can reduce costs by warehousing more children into one building then putting children closer to their homes but over many buildings over a wide area. Thus no one wants to make the decisions needed to make out schools safer in such an attack.
1. Increase mental health expenditures. This includes permitting such people to retain their guns, if they want to if that is the only way to get them to agree to treatment. I have had meet many people in my lifetime that needed professional Psychological help but refused to get it for fears they would lose their weapons. Thus you need a policy they can retain their weapons as long as they are going through treatment.
2. Increase involuntary commitments. These are expensive. You have to involved a Judge, a Prosecutor and a Defense Attorney in addition to the Psychologists or Psychiatrists involved in the case. A hearing has to be held. A record of the hearing has to be made, but if after hearing the evidence the Judge rules the defendant a danger to himself or others, then it becomes part of the record and all firearms owned by the defendant be confiscated and the Defendant not permitted to buy further firearms. If this had been a reasonable offer to the mother of the Connecticut shooter, that shooter would have been avoided, but right now most states do not permit such a hearing unless it is clear on the record such a person is a clear danger to themselves or others.
3. Telling people who may be committed that they can keep their gun if they agree to be committed, but retain the right to hold a hearing if called for.
4. Smaller more local schools. Small Schools tend to be ignored by terrorist groups. Remember Napoleon's maxim "To defend everywhere is to defend no where" thus by disbursing school if a terrorists attacks a school you limit the number of victims.
5. Many exits from the school. Yes many exits permit people to enter without permission, but nuts rarely act other then alone, thus they can NOT block all exits. The more exits, including many exits from a School Room (Windows should be able to be opened and children crawl out of them if necessary).
6. Exits do not mean entrances, thus restricting entrances to one, people will use that one. Exits on the other hand to be known to the students must be used by the Students, so students should be permitted to use any exit to leave the school if they have permission to do so.
7. 69% of all murders are done with pistols not rifles or shotguns. Less then 5% of all murders are done by Rifles AND Shotguns. In most states in most years, people kill each other with their own body parts (Hands and Feet) more then people kill people with Rifles AND shotguns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
Connecticut had zero people killed by a rifle and one by shotgun in 2010, one by rifle and one by shotgun in 2011 and 27 by Rifle in 2012 (the school shooting) and one by shotgun in 2012. At the same time Connecticut had 50 killed by pistols in 2012, 72 in 2010 and 94 in 2011.
I bring up Connecticut for the trend even in Connecticut is almost no use of a rifle or shotgun in crime. The choice is pistols. Yes in the school shooting the shooters choice was a Rifle, but it was an exception to the general rule. In 2012, in Connecticut 50 people were killed by pistols, 17 people were knifed to death, and 14 people had something else kill them (generally a "Blunt Instrument", baseball bat, club, cement block etc). These other methods of killing have been dropping since the 1990s but consistently used more then Rifles and Shotguns.
Thus something has to be done about pistols but until we get a Supreme Court that is willing to undo what this Court has done on restrictions on the ownership of pistols. I do not see that happening soon. I can see the court upholding a requirement that all pistols owners attend a class on the danger of the pistol, on the grounds such a class does NOT interfere with its finding that it is a fundamental right to own a pistol for self defense.
I bring up the above, for we have to do something, but it has to be something the courts will uphold. Most other proposals I have read either are not possible to pass, or openly in violation of the recent Supreme Court decisions. To get anything passed we have to accept those limits, which is why I started this sub thread in the first place. The laws as it is right now, has to considered the various cases involving sex shops from the 1970s and zoning laws regarding low income people and people with handicaps. What you want and what can be done are two different things and I tend to look at what can be done more then what is the ideal solution.
