WOW, lots of blood in Chicago-stan..., Mayor Daley, blames the victims

Worse than Iraq, And they are clinging to their gun control...like it does ANY good whatsoever...

http://www.examiner.com/x-10377-Chicago-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m4d17-Warm-weather-in-Chicago-equals-7-dead-and-22-shot-in-12-hours



In another artical...the numbers are even more staggering..

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7391338



here is a great one from Daley, who is HAPPY with the Police response, and notice, he BLAMES THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!



And of course, here comes the brainless drivle...



Albert Einstein, once said..

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

WOW, these numbers are bad..



http://www.examiner.com/x-10377-Chicago-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m4d3-41-shot-and-4-killed-in-26-hours

Gives new meaning to that old song, about "Summertime in Chicago".

People like YOU who advocate work for gun proliferation are responsible for this and thousands of other preventable tragedies, but lack the character to admit it.

Who said I am for gun proliferation?? WHERE HAVE I EVER POSTED SUCH A THING??

Or are you making things up as you go along again??

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am jumping in my car right now to drive to Chicago and turn my self in, its all my fault. You have all the answers you are so much smarter than me with my proliferating ways, ooh depa depa grant me some character now that I have seen the light. We will ban all guns and drugs too and we will throw in some internet censorship just like Australia so people can't bitch about it over the web.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My great grandfather took my granddad to the hospital after a car wreck and they would not treat a “prairie nigger” until he pulled his service colt and told them it was their life or my grandfathers to date the one simple act has saved 5 people and one day that 1911 will be mine and pardon my slavish devotion to the constitution this Chickasaw knows his rights and will use ALL of them ofie ishka

that would have been constitutional too, wouldn't it?

Funny how that never quite adds up right.

I would not have came to be but I am so yes it is funny real funny and denying people health care based on race was constitutional too so like it or not I don't care I have 2 wonderful boys to show for it I am thankful things have changed and you can cheer Chicago's Jim Crow gun ban all you want from the roof it's your right

Things have changed, I didn't even know.

you say you do I guess but it did not come from me. Parents will go to the end of the earth to save a child, maybe you don't have kids maybe you do. Doing nothing would have been death for my grandpa, seeing how the hand crank windshield wiper fractured his skull in the accident.

if it was 50 years ago and if their life was on the line.

You don't need a gun to handle situations like that anymore. The rule of law is far from perfect, but it's made life better for all Americans.

Handguns, in too many cases, take the rule of law away from the law.

is entirely within the rule of law.

I can't imagine being unwilling to put my own life in some amount of danger if my girl were hurt and a doctor refused to treat her on racial grounds.


I can't believe that you are seriously supporting that kind of racist behavior on THIS site, but then I also generally think I'll be chatting with rational people on a site like this.


How much of the ole jungle juice did you slug before you logged on to Democratic Underground to stick up for racist doctors who would like to allow a young man to die because of his ethnicity?

Murder is a malum in se, an "ill in itself." These are actions which directly inflict physical or material harm to an unwilling victim, which is why society prohibits them.

Violation of firearms laws are mala prohibita, "ills (because they are) prohibited," in other words, actions that are wrong because statute says so. Generally, the justification for the prohibitions that create mala prohibita is that the actions that prohibit cause an unacceptably high risk of a malum in se occurring. For example, driving under the influence is a malum prohibitum because, while it does not directly inflict harm on anyone, it creates an unacceptably high risk of a motor vehicle collision resulting in harm to life, limb and/or property.

However, to remain justified, the prohibitions that create mala prohibita need to actually prove effective at preventing the malum in se they're supposed to prevent; their benefits need to significantly exceed the costs they impose on citizens' freedom.

Thus, advocating that Chicago's gun laws be repealed on the basis that they take away too much of their citizens' freedom with not enough to show for it, it not analogous to advocating that laws against murder be repealed.

for trying to bring an enlightened point of view to what is, otherwise, a debate fueled principally by fear. You should know better. hahah
;)

You should follow Daly's advice and look in the mirror yourself.

Shifting the blame is a prohibitionist's favorite gambit; sort of like the drug prohibitionist blaming those who advocate legalization and regulation for all the bloodshed resulting from THEIR prohibition. Irony, indeed.

Guns do not guarantee one's safety and protection; but they give the average citizen a chance when confronting the armed thug. And the thug is ALWAYS armed, prohibition or no.

and it's interesting to see that it's not always limited to the right.

I should also add cowardice as a motivation- because it's apparent in your post. Irrational fear of bad guys.

Nope- your proliferation policies ARE responsible for the gun violence- though as mentioned, you won't- like petulant frightened child, ever take responsibility for the hams you bring to others.

Cowardice must be the new "buzz term" for the prohis. Is this replacing the male appendage thing?

"I should also add cowardice as a motivation- because it's apparent in your post. Irrational fear of bad guys."

I know you are falling all over yourself (or hiking up your pants, lower lip out) to use personal attack, but you seem to equate "irrational fear of bad guys" with "cowardice." You should at least revert back to your usual banal and antique expression: "paranoia." That seems to be a more fitting definition, however miscast. But rest assured I rest assured -- 9 hrs a night because my fear is blissfully rational: I lock my doors and keep a revolver by the bed. Cost less than my fire insurance, and that's about right.

"proliferation policies." Another one: please define your terms, explaining who/what is advocating this "policy," giving cites.

Your last stuff is MOTS. You should really get a talk show. Radio. A.M.

I have to ask this: I sometimes donate venison, taken from the "hams" of deer I have killed, to local needy folks. You don't mean this when declaring I "won't...ever take responsibility for the hams you bring to others," do you? (I normally don't bring up sp and grammar.)

they know what it takes to fix it. Its just much easier to talk gun control. Easier to fool the morons.

The local law enforcement is getting busted!

Water police chief Inspector Alan Magarry charged for illegally importing firearm parts

Customs yesterday confirmed that after a seven-month investigation, Inspector Alan Magarry has been charged with three offences of importation of prohibited goods. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of a $275,000 fine or ten years imprisonment.
The investigation began last September when Customs intercepted four parcels sent from America, allegedly containing machine gun kits. A raid on Magarry's home north of Brisbane followed, with police and Customs seizing numerous firearms, computers and documents.

At the time, police said Insp Magarry had special permission to engage in firearms trading and work as an armourer.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/water-police-chief-inspector-alan-magarry-charged-for-illegally-importing-firearm-parts/story-fn3dxity-1225855817635


And there are still the local home invasions.

Woman shot dead in house on Macklin St, Sturt

DISTRESSED witnesses to a shooting murder in Adelaide's south this morning are being interviewed by Major Crime detectives.
Police say several people were inside the unit on Macklin St at Sturt when three men burst in about 2.40am.
A woman, 46, was shot in the back in front of the other occupants of the home - believed to be her sons - before the offenders - dressed in dark clothing - fled the scene.
Police believe the murder may be drug related and have uncovered a number of cannabis plants from a room inside the home.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/woman-shot-dead-in-house-on-macklin-st-sturt/story-e6frea6u-1225855271136

Not to mention the local muggers

Bashed robbery victim in coma, found at Collins and Swanston Streets

A MAN, 21, is in an induced coma after being found bashed and robbed on a footpath in Melbourne's CBD.
Police say the man was beaten and robbed on the corner of Collins and Swanston Streets in the central business district about 12.45 this morning.
He was found on the footpath with critical head injuries.
It is believed the victim was with two other men in a taxi earlier in the evening.
Police are interviewing a 29-year-old man.

And all is well in the wonderfull land of OZ.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Too much gun violence...we need more guns!

:silly:

Point to where that argument is made....

and we've got a deal.

"Mayor Daley also did not mention the low number of officers on the street and blamed the shootings on the lack of gun control."

Or maybe a Virginia Mountainman knows more about urban violence than the (soon-to-be) longest serving mayor in Chicago history.

I live in an area with lots and lots of guns. Murders are so rare that we talk about them for years afterward. "Man,...remember when that lady killed her boyfriend a coupla years back..."

Lack of gun control =/= high murder rate.

Straight out of The Quotable Star Wars chapter on responsibility:

Except Daley takes it a step further, by saying "It's everybody's fault but mine."

gun control doesn't do any good if there isn't anyone around to enforce it.

Organized criminals in China have no difficulty acquiring firearms; they bribe some guys at the arms manufacturing plant to slip them a few crates out the back door, and thanks to lousy inventory control, nobody even notices the guns are gone. In fact, on paper, the guns don't even exist.

That's in China, a police state.

Allowing the law-abiding to be armed gives us the ability to defend ourselves from violent felons.

Your naivete is showing.

Got it.

let's see. "We the People..", no. "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers...", nope. I know I saw it here a minute ago...

and the right to use toilet paper, and the right to.....

You have no idea what the historical context of the Second Amendment is or you wouldn't be wasting my time.

A "well-regulated militia" refers to the 800-year-old notion of requiring to keep arms to take part in the "hue and cry" when necessary, i.e. defending a local landowner, serving in place of an army. As outdated as the 3/5 compromise (you'll have to look that one up yourself).

"Well-regulated" means gun control. Your guns are controlled right now, whether you like it or not, and with a little common sense they'll be more controlled in the future.

"Well-regulated" means gun control. Your guns are controlled right now, whether you like it or not, and with a little common sense they'll be more controlled in the future.

The term, "well regulated," meant "properly functioning," not gun control. If you'd spent a few minutes googling, you'd have known that.

Several state constitutions that were based on the Bill of Rights, such as PA's, make it explicit in describing the right to bear arms "in defense of the self and of the state." So were the writings of the founders at the time. And then there's the argument put forward by a Georgia delegate to the Constitutional Convention: that if they put forward a list of rights, in the future someone would claim that the people are entitled to ONLY those rights narrowly spelled out in the the constitution. Hence the wording of the ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If you think that parts of the constitution are outdated, you're free to follow the legally prescribed method of attempting to change it.

Check the Declaration of Independence. It it clearly stated as an inherent right.

Also check the state constitutions... Here I did some homework for you...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=299683&mesg_id=299683

Thanks.

People are people no matter their living arrangements. I fail to see how an apartment dweller in an urban setting is any less trustworthy than someone living on a few hundred acres. Normal everyday lawful citizens aren't the problem in Chicago. And I firmly believe the law-abiding outnumber the criminals greatly. It's those people who choose to engage in criminal activity like drug trafficking, drive-by shooting, pimping, robbery, and any other number of money making rackets who are the problem.

My Second Amendment rights aren't causing the deaths and mayhem. It's the behavior of a certain segment of society that chooses to live a criminal lifestyle that is getting all those people killed in Chicago. Punish the guilty and leave the rest of us alone.

Urban dwellers live in fear of violence on a day to day basis. People outside that environment have no clue.

So yes, you arguing for your supposed "second amendment rights" is causing a lot of people suffering. Or maybe because you don't see it, it isn't happening.

:silly:

Is it because of the guy who lives down the hall who goes to work every day and obeys the law? Or is because of the fellows down on the corner selling drugs and doing whatever else they please? There's no need to be afraid of everyone because a very small percentage of the population is completely lawless.

People are people no matter where they live. I see no reason for stripping a citizen of his rights because he or she chooses to live in a city. The Second Amendment is not causing this. It's the wanton criminal behavior of a small percentage of our population who is to blame.

for conflict. The people who are responsible for "wanton criminal behavior" are not anarchists or idiots, they're poor, desperate people living very close together. People who live in rural or suburban areas who get indignant with, "Why can't they obey the law?"-type sentiments need to realize that in the inner city you can obey the law and starve to death. It happens every day of the year.

Would you rather deal crack or starve to death? False dichotomy, is it? Tell you what - give up all your earthly possessions and move to the projects in Chicago, pull yourself up by your bootstraps as a model citizen, THEN you can tell me it's a false dichotomy.

So in fact people are not people, no matter where they live. Some are desperate. And it's not just the desperate ones who get killed by handgun violence, it's kids waiting for buses, moms walking to the store, etc.

Unfortunately, handgun control isn't something which can be enacted in cities only, or we likely wouldn't have a problem. But it's a tradeoff like many others in society - we give up some rights because of the profound negative impact those rights would have on others.

to allow street corner drug dealing, pimping, and violence because a guy's got to make a living somehow? I don't buy it. Enabling that kind of behavior doesn't make it right. You can never convince me that being poor makes it OK to prey on others the way the gangs do. Just tossing the problem aside by saying "Poor people have poor ways." is not OK in my book.

I've dealt with grinding poverty all my life, you can't lecture me about desperation.

Of course it's not right, and I'm not tossing the problem aside, I'm not saying it's OK. But the reality is this: people will do what they have to do to survive, and a lot of innocent people end up dead once you add handguns (and a little hot weather) into the equation.

Your right to own handguns has a steep price, whether you're aware of it or not.

that a very small group of individuals are holding entire neighborhoods hostage because they want easy money. And nobody is willing to do a thing about it other than make excuses about why it's happening. I'm not accepting that excuse. People have to be held accountable for their actions.

I've seen first hand the damage done when everyone just turns a blind eye to the problem hoping it will go away on it's own. Or worse yet, when they figure out how to make a dime on the suffering. I've watched bright young men and women get sucked into the easy money and quick notoriety. Neighborhoods get ravaged, working people lose the most, and folks tucked away in their ivory towers make observations about how terribly those people behave. It's not survival that drives the gangs, it's easy money and the thrills.

Our Constitutional Rights have nothing to do with the gang problem. Taking our rights away won't cure it.

Drama much?

Those cop shows you watch have made you an expert, have they? :eyes:

When's the last time _you_ had to decide which bill is least overdue, and which utility will not cut you off if you give them $20?

When's the last time you decided to forgo eating dinner this week so that you could have enough food for your wife until the next payday?

Then you're not desperate. End of story.

I wasn't 'picked' every day.

Then I got a job making minimum wage picking groceries out of a freezer and loading trucks from 4am-9am six days a week. The buses didn't run that early, so I also had to burn gas that we couldn't afford. Not full time, so no benefits. And they laid me off before I would have qualified for unemployment.

So yes, I've 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' in a big city.

Again I ask, have you been in that position?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

Really, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. :crazy:

I am in Dallas almost every day. I live just south of it.

Furthermore, I am a senior citizen and have lived in other urban areas. I have lived in downtown Dallas, New Orleans, Norfolk, Pensacola, Biloxi, Corpus Christi, and have been to every major city in the lower 48 states.

I am a senior citizen and have accumulated a good bit of experience in those years.

I am also a retired private investigator.

Now that your insulting attack has failed hugely, do you have any real arguments or is insulting your opponents the only thing you are capable of?

Only NYC, LA and Chicago are "urban." The rest of the country is either rural or suburbs of those proud metropolises.

You see, to commit gun violence, there have to be guns in a society. Take away the guns, and there is no gun violence. Get it?

look at how much gun violence Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore, Iceland, other countries that ban civilians from having handguns.

Please understand that I don't view getting knifed, or clubbed, or beaten, etc. as a favorable alternative. I am too old to try to fight it out with a young violent felon, so I carry a gun just in case violent crime comes my way.

And their criminals still get guns. Mexico has extremely tough gun laws, and only ONE gun store in the entire country. It is run by the government. Their criminals seem to be extremely well armed. And they aren't getting those machine guns, RPGs, genuine AK-47s from the U.S.

Homicide - USA number one! (industrial first world democracies) source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

This despite huge gun ownership numbers. It does not make a compelling argument that guns make us safer.

Yes you can have Jamaica and other distressed second and third world nations, but that is not really a good comparison. Try honesty.

Because Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all have higher homicide rates than the United States. Or is the very fact that they have higher homicide rates evidence that they aren't "first world" countries, just like Scotsmen who put sugar in their porridge are not "true Scotsmen" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots)?

Maybe you should rein in those accusations of dishonesty until you manage to contain your own.

Apart from having a lower homicide rate than the United States, that is?

NATO Member States during the Cold War

Belgium Canada Denmark
France Germany (West) Greece
Iceland Italy Luxembourg
Netherlands Norway Portugal
Spain (since 1982) Turkey United Kingdom
USA

US Aligned States
Israel Japan Korea (South)

Former British Colonies
Australia New Zealand

Neutral and more or less industrialized capitalist countries
Austria Ireland Sweden Switzerland

I'll give you Turkey as a supporting data point. I get all the rest.

By what criteria do you include the countries you list and exclude others? Iceland just underwent the largest collapse of a banking sector (relative to the size of its economy) ever suffered by any country. Greece is in effect bankrupt, and is being propped up by other members of the euro zone and the IMF. Turkey has a lower GDP per head than any of the Baltic republics, or Mexico, for that matter. The Irish economy was one of the worst in Europe until it became a high-tech hub in the late 1990s.

I'm just not seeing any coherent objective selection criteria here.

Wanna bet you don't get an answer?

Whenever someone busts out with some "the United States has the highest homicide rate of"-type claim, it almost invariably turns out to mean "the United States has the highest homicide rate of a bunch of countries that have lower homicide rates than the U.S., plus the U.S."

Color me underwhelmed.

the criteria is fairly well established. The point is to compare societies that are at least nominally similar. So instead of pointing at Jamaica, as has been done in this thread, if you want to be honest then you need to look at Great Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan,... societies that are functional modern industrialized democracies, not in political turmoil, etc. and compare crime rates and gun control policies. Of course if you have no intention of engaging in honest discourse then have at it with the Jamaica vs US comparisons.

I brought up Jamaica in response to provis99's post #13 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=311016&mesg_id=311032), in which he asserted that tighter gun laws will result in less gun violence. That was a perfectly valid counter-example to that particular assertion as worded; nothing dishonest about it, and I do not take take kindly to your insinuation that I was/am being dishonest.

Yes, the criterium for what constitutes a "first world nation" is fairly well established; it means more or less "allied militarily with the United States during the Cold War." Problem is, the Cold War's been over for twenty years, and things have changed a bit since then. Six former Warsaw Pact/Comecon member states are now members of NATO and the EU, as are three former constituent republics of a seventh. Continuing to cling to the Cold War-era-based categorization (as that site http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/first_world.htm from which you cribbed your list does) is simply ridiculous when the Baltic republics, Poland, the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia (supposedly "Second World") all score higher on the Human Development Index than Turkey (supposedly "First World"). And whither poor Finland? Whoever compiled those lists completely overlooked it.

"Societies that are functional modern industrialized democracies, not in political turmoil, etc." Hm. That's kind of vague, and the "etc." seems to leave room for an ad hoc excuse if an example is proffered that matches the description, yet has a higher homicide rate than the U.S. But by which token are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania not "functional modern industrialized democracies"? Again, they're members of NATO and the EU (which means they met the Copenhagen criteria in 2003); Estonia was classed as a "high income economy" by the World Bank in 2006. Seems to me you need to drag your model of the world into the 21st century.

Or you might simply be casting about for excuses to discount those inconvenient examples because "you have no intention of engaging in honest discourse," to borrow a phrase.

However, you are counting only homicide rate. I am including all violent crime. Getting stabbed, even if you live, isn't a happy experience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=310790&mesg_id=310856

At that link the documentation and links are shown that establish that Europe has a much higher violent crime rate, although not as deadly.

I won't even bother challenging that. I'll trade a higher violent crime rate for a less deadly one any day.

International comparison

The manner in which America's crime rate compared to other countries of similar wealth and development depends on the nature of the crime used in the comparison.<29> Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits.
Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Some types of reported property crime in the U.S. survey as lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

So again, without supporting evidence to the contrary, I believe the assertion that other similar nations with stricter gun control laws have "much higher violent crime rates" is unsubstantiated bullshit.

The International Crime Victims Survey is generally regarded as the best conducted survey of international comparisons, and it has the advantage that it applies the same standards to all countries surveyed.

In the 2000 survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/Industr2000a.pdf) the United States came 13th out of 17 countries surveyed in percentage of respondents who had fallen victim "selected contact crimes" (robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force); see Figure 5 on page 33.

In the 2004-2005 survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf), the United States came 24th out of 30 countries surveyed for robbery (Table 11, p.74).
It was, alas, first in sexual assaults (Table 12, p.78), but a look at the table shows that that percentages among U.S. residents have varied widely in the various surveys.
Then, in assaults with force, the United States came 6th (Figure 16, p.82). The U.S. did have one of the highest percentages of assaults carried out with firearms (6%), but not the highest (Mexico, 16%), and the U.S. was matched by Northern Ireland (the constituent parts of the UK are counted as separate countries); since Northern Ireland also had the highest percentage of respondents victimized (about twice as many as the United States), it would appear the risk of being assaulted by someone with a firearm was significantly higher in Northern Ireland than in the U.S., at least in that year.

It's not across the board, for all countries, for every year of the survey, but I think we can certainly say that there are some countries that have higher levels of one or more types of violent crime. The United Kingdom in particular stands out as having high levels of nonfatal violent crime.

So can we agree that there is at least some substance to GSC's assertion?

as the link I provided noted, it is difficult to compare for almost any crime stats except homicide due to differences in reporting.

Robbery however is general not a crime against a person it is a crime against property. The claim was crimes of violence were 'much higher' in gun control modern industrial democracies, that claim remains unsubstantiated, and fails to explain the 'much higher' homicide rate here.

You are thinking of theft or burglary, which is generally considered a non-violent crime but because of the very real tendency for burglaries to turn into robberies, they are sometimes counted as a violent crime as well.

What is non-violent about sticking a knife, gun, bat, in someone's face and telling them "your money or your life?"

If it's strong-arm robbery or robbery with a contact type weapon it is usually more violent than robbery with a gun, since it often makes things easier for the criminal to soften up their victim a little so they have something else to focus on while they are being relieved of their burdensome valuables.

Yes it is a crime against property. Which is achieved through inflicting violence on the victim.

Making it an archetypical "violent crime".

Robbery is theft under threat, or actual infliction, of violence. By way of example, take section 9A.56.190 of the Revised Code of Washington (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.190):

Or from the UK Theft Act 1968 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1#pb2-l1g8):


Strictly speaking, robbery is both a property crime and a crime against the person, but because crimes against the person are regarded as more serious than property crimes, it's regarded as a violent crime first and foremost.

Jamaica imposed stringent gun laws in 1974; possession of firearms was completely outlawed, and possession of a single round of ammunition could get you a life sentence. In 2005, Jamaica had the highest intentional homicide rate in the world, 58/100,000. The lowest the Jamaican homicide rate has been in the past decade is 34/100,000, over three times as high as the worst the U.S. intentional homicide rate recorded.

Yes, if you take away the guns, there can be no gun violence; that's almost a tautology. But what that statement overlooks is that the law alone will not remove the firearms from a society, or keep them out. In spite of stringent gun laws in places like the Netherlands and the UK, anyone who wants a firearm badly enough to get one illegally can quite readily acquire one. Dutch gun laws didn't prevent the assassinations (by handgun) of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh, or the murders of Arkan Yildiz (owner of a late-night convenience store in north Amsterdam, shot during a robbery) or Hans van Wieren (the vice-principal of a secondary school in The Hague who was fatally shot by a 16 year-old student in the school cafeteria during lunch hour).

And curiously, in the 2004-2005 International Crime Victims Survey (http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/pdffiles/ICVS2004_05.pdf), 0.4% of respondents in the United Kingdom reported possessing a handgun, even though by then, handguns had been completely illegal to possess for over seven years. And 10.3% of respondents in crime-ridden Switzerland reported possessing handguns, the second-highest percentage of countries surveyed (the highest, predictably, being the US with 17.6%).

Very simply, Chicago is a demonstration of the disconnect between gun laws and violent crime on a micro scale. Despite a de facto handgun ban, and stringent restrictions on long guns, (semi-)organized crime brings in the weapons it wants from outside, funded by the revenues from the sale of drugs it also brings in from outside. It's facile to blame gun laws in the rest of the U.S. for Chicago's gang problems; after all, they're not getting their cocaine, heroin, etc. from within the United States, so if the source of guns were cut off in the United States, there's no credible reason to assume they couldn't get their guns from the sources organized crime in the rest of the industrialized world does, i.e. south-eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and, of course, China.

it's FAR better to be hacked to death with a machete than shot.

NOT!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I dare you to show me one post where a pro 2A person said, "Let's give guns to everyone".

I'll wait.

Does this mean you lose?

I'm hardly a fan of the Emperor, but he doe's have a valid point there.

Until the people in a neighborhood aren't intimidated by the gangs nothing will change. When you're just trying to get by and have no means of self defense some times it's best to just see nothing. This is especially true when you don't actually believe that the government is concerned about your personal or even your neighborhoods collective safety. The gangs rule Chicago and they will until the City government decides it's no longer in their best interest to allow it.

And no, that is not the definition of insanity.

OCD is generally not considered insanity or stupidity, it is considered a brain disorder.

Not these fools.