According to other reports (which doubters can look up), Wright was charged with one felony count of unlawful use of a weapon after police discovered he had two prior weapons convictions from 1968 and 1994, officials said. Records show Wright also was convicted of theft in 1990. In the 1990 and 1994 cases, Wright got probation.


Now, with respect to Chicago's gun laws -- first, the burglar didn't have a gun (maybe laws make it hard for novice criminals to get guns, that's a good thing).

Second, Wright only has a 38 and chose to shoot unarmed burglar in leg (good move Wright). What if Wright had been like many hardened gun owners -- with assault rifles, hi-cap mags, loads carefully selected to kill and maim, etc. -- I suspect the novice burglar would have been killed.

Chicago's gun laws seem to be working, except in extremely high crime areas where drug dealers kill each other with guns imported from other states, etc.

to the homeowner. It may be too late if one waits to find out. I would have shot him too if I was home alone because my hubby was out of town.

Fact is, this situation worked out well. And, although the OP didn't do the work to find out why Wright was arrested, there were real reasons Wright was originally charged.

Center of mass- best chance for an incapacitating hit

Assuming of course he didn't surrender when offered.

-- my goodness but it's suddenly warm in here.

Another post by Hoyt...

You might want to look into that...

...as much as they need to be dismissed out of hand...

Wright was not arrested for shooting intruder -- as the OP suggests -- he was arrested for violating gun laws.

Just because you don't like my opinions about guns and those who love and abuse them, doesn't make the opinions wrong.

In #5 had anything to do with the arrest of the homeowner. I had found that he had a felony record. I did remark on the 'sentence' the burglar received.

My questions pertain to asserts made that assumed facts not in the article.

"Chicago's gun laws seem to be working, except in extremely high crime areas where drug dealers kill each other with guns imported from other states, etc."

You would have noticed why homeowner was originally charged.

Don't change the subject, don't say the Google is easy & don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Back it up.
that's all.......

You post stuff you back it up or shut up instead of making snide sideways attacks. I have been marching in the streets since 1971 for progressive reasons, against the war, and still did 4 years honorable service in the Army.
Your passion is admirable if misdirected. So don't make crap up, research first.

The only time I am a "hardened gun owner," is when my girlfriend is feeling frisky.



And during those frisky rumpus times, the firearms stay safely stowed away...

The rest of the time, the two of us are just regular citizens who reserve the right to defend our home if necessary. Basically, we fall into the 'mostly harmless' category.

K&R to highlight the absurdity of Chicago's enforcement priorities.

-app

convicted of a violent gun crime should be able to possess a handgun?

Your headline leaves out "the rest of the story".

I'd say justice was more than served, as the old guy was let off even though HE DID break the law. But, you are trying to make this sound like a big injustice. What's up with that?

Can't tell someone else to do something if you aren't willing to do it yourself...

You have several posts where you have offered an opinion as fact without any substantial evidence to support it. That is not responsible and you still have the duty to substantiate those statements before you can call somebody else to do the same. You have a lot of work to do, better get started.

Your irresponsible and irrational posts are legendary here and elsewhere. To call someone else on it is about the biggest PKB I have seen here in quite some time.

he was not. You guys never search for the truth. As a "professor," you should do that. You guys post threads like this with a heading that implies Wright was arrested for defending his home. That was not the case.

I did not post the OP and I read about the event before it was posted here.

One of the reasons I can so easily debunk what you and others post is that I do read things and care about context.

Don't tar me with your common mistakes, oversights and errors.

What I said that for someone with your track record to call someone on not fully reading or understanding something they posted was a classic PKB.

But give me an example.

the homeowner had already been dropped. Your title implies that the charges are still outstanding against the homeowner.

2 comments
Post A Comment
1
joannroth
6/9/12 3:22 PM CDT
The homeowner should have been gave an award and a chance to reload.... Mark As Violation

2
firepwr3
6/9/12 3:44 PM CDT
I grew up in Chicago but left in part because if I were to defend myself from scumbags like this kid, I would risk prison, while 9 times out of 10, the thugs get let off with a slap on the wrist. <br/><br/>My question is when are the citizens of Chicago going to say "Enough!" and abolish the utterly ridiculous (and failed) gun control laws? <br/><br/>John C. Mark As Violation

YUP!