Orlando vs. Chicago
The Chicago Tribune compares the deadliest terror attack on US soil since 9-11-2001 that happened in Orlando’s Pulse a few weeks ago to the monthly rate of shooting deaths and injuries on a typical month of life in Chicago;
Thus far in 2016, more than 1,950 people have been hit by bullets in Chicago, including most of the 315 homicide victims. “We have an Orlando every month in Chicago, and no one seems to raise an eyebrow,” Dean Angelo, president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, said the other day.
Of course, the Tribune thinks that by tightening background checks that would rectify the problem;
[T]he Orlando killer, passed a federal background check to buy his guns. But felons may evade such requirements by purchasing from private sellers, who unlike licensed dealers aren’t required to do background checks. They may work with straw purchasers, who buy firearms legally and then sell them illegally. Requiring background checks for all gun sales and stiffening penalties for straw purchasers could curb this sort of activity, raising the risks and costs for those doing business with criminals.
Need proof? A 2013 federal gun trafficking case found one man who bought 43 guns from gun shows and stores in Indiana, which has looser gun laws than Illinois, before bringing them to Chicago and selling them to an undercover agent.
I have a question for the Trib. Do they honestly think that someone buying guns out of state and selling those guns in inner-city Chicago is going to bother going through background checks during those sales? He already did his own background checks in Indiana at the points of sale, so what would change?
No one expects such changes in gun laws to make a big difference or a rapid one. But they are likely to do some good — with minimal inconvenience to law-abiding gun buyers.
How, exactly, would it make a difference? Folks who sell guns to criminals are not going to change what they do now. If they sell guns to criminals, they understand the risks, but the rewards outweigh the risks – that’s the problem with criminals. The Trib should know that. Guns have been banned in Chicago for decades and should not be a problem, given the gun-grabbers’ rhetoric, but here we are.
The problem is not that guns are available through illegal means, the problem is that punishment for gun crimes doesn’t scare criminals away from a life of crime, prosecutors would rather make deals that make law breakers pay for their crimes. it’s easier to write new laws than it is to enforce the old ones – that’s how legislators stay in office. More laws don’t necessarily make us safer when no one is willing to enforce the law.
Category: Guns
WTF good are all the existing Gun Laws when they’re not enforced? Yeah, not worth even half a moldy ratshit fuck.
Pass laws.
Do not enforce laws.
Preach to the ignorant masses that we need more laws.
Repeat as necessary to remain in office.
ad nauseum
That Orland fiasco could have been avoided, altho I am not sure it wasn’t a false flag event for the worthless bastard in the white house to push his gun control bullshyt! if phoebe (FBI) had gotten off their prissy little asses and done their job, the a.h.’s knew about this a.h.’s connection to the terrorists..yet they gave him a security job…armed at that! J. Edgar the queer of the century would be proud of his ? boyz?
Linear goal oriented logic is as rare as chicken lips these days…ffs
The definition of insanity…
Let us revisit the statement of our VP, Joe Bite-me. “We don’t have time or resources to prosecute everyone who lies” on a 4473. So, how will more laws about background checks put the bad guys in prison, the Feds don’t go after people trying to bypass the background checks now?
Strictest gun law areas have the highest gun violence rates. Go figure. You would think that otherwise intelligent people, I mean folks smart enough to at least balance their own check books could run the numbers for themselves and see this isn’t working. But then, they are usually the liberal elite who travel in safety and a lot have protection of their own, so in their minds, who cares about the middle class folks trying to survive a days work without getting shot. I think The Other Whitey said it best above. It is trying to understand insanity coming from an otherwise sane person. No rhyme or reason to it. The answer is not to take away the right of law abiding folks but to take away the permits and protection of the liberal leftists and let them fend for themselves. Then they may change their tune.
If strict Gun Control Laws were the panacea for crime like libs claim, places like Chicago, DC, NJ and Mexico would be crime-free Utopias, but since when have pops passed up on a chance to tap dance on the latest Crisis dujour?
Let’s see. We don’t have money to enforce laws, support jails, or fund the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces; but we somehow can scratch up money to support every ME nation we never broke, and pay off terrorists that we should have killed a decade ago. Is that about right?
This shit is so messed up, it isn’t even a little amusing anymore.
Give them time, they’ll come with more stupid shit. I don’t really get surprised anymore. I just wonder how they fool so many people.
I heard the other day, but the last two elections were decided by voters 25 years old and younger. So the people that know the least about what’s going on are the ones that decided our leaders. Go figure out where were going
1) Meth is illegal.
2) Selling Meth is illegal.
3) The government made the ingredients for Meth difficult to get and impossible to get in large numbers.
4) Meth is still a problem across the country.
I can see how government oversight has fixed the Meth problem in the country. I wonder if anyone remembers how the ban on alcohol in the country stopped criminals from making, importing, and selling alcohol.
It did! But it also created a whole new interprise, called the ‘MOB”
The analogy is quite imperfect but relating criminal shootings to legal acquisition of the firearm used in the crimes is akin to expecting car thieves and would-be car thieves to hold valid driving licensees.
Okay, Chicago has Eddie Johnson as the police superintendent. He knows what the real problem is (gangs, not guns) and he is trying to do something about it.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/07/02/raids-on-gangs-result-in-88-arrests-weapons-seizures-chicago-police-say/
Anyone who wants to know what goes on in the Second City can enter this in your search block to get the live news (unless there’s a ball game).
http://wgntv.com/on-air/live-streaming/
Johnson has said the CPD knows how many gangbangers (400) are responsible, who they are, where they live and where they are getting their guns. Not once did he blame gun shops or gun shows.
He’s a whole lot smarter than that jackass mayor, whose own son got held up at gunpoint in the Ravenswood neighborhood a few yards from his front door. Rahmbo is an idiot who should be unelected. Crime has gotten worse in Chicago entirely on his watch.
In some ways, it’s a shame that the El Rukhns were broken up when Jeff Fort was arrested and jailed, because it stayed out of the other neighborhoods. Now it’s out of control and I blame that entirely on ‘Rahmbo’ Emmanuel.
Isn’t the Tribune the same paper that sent the wife-beating drunk to buy a firearm? How’d that background check work out for them?
What a memory you have! Close, but it was the Chicago Sun-Times, which is owned by the Tribune Company.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/steinberg-would-be-terrorists-can-buy-guns-but-a-reporter-no/
And there were those side stories about his whining, too:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/wife-beating-reporter-gets-a-mega-surprise-when-he-goes-to-write-his-anti-gun-hit-piece/
He’s apparently well-known, however, as a drunk and a wife beater because he’s written about it. The staff at the gun store knew about his past and that’s why he was denied the sale.
“The dealer at Maxon’s Shooters Supply has the final say and didn’t want to take a chance.
Steinberg was very aggressive and threatening after he was denied, telling the dealer he was going to write about it.”
I give Maxon’s Shooters Supply a FIVE COCONUT rating for their scrutiny of who they sell to!!
Here is the game plan:
Note a tragic event involving firearms.
Pass “common sense” restrictions that will do nothing to prevent tragedy, but “we have to do something!” and “this is a minimal inconvenience to gun owners / duck hunters / whatever!”
Note another tragedy not prevented by any existing laws.
Pass more laws “for the children” and point out that people have to be real manies to not want to help ‘the children”
Repeat cycle until guns are banned.
Note continuing butchery that goes merrily on in the police state, but point out “how it would be very much worse if you folks had guns”.
Because you folks now, finally, can’t get uppity anymore, and now, finally, have to obey your betters.
—-
They oppose on principle any action that might actually reduce crime and/or violence, because doing so does not achieve the progressive goal of control of the population.
Chicago is the -goal-. They are -happy- with that ugly situation. They want -more- of it.
Because they own Chicago 100%, and have total control. -Your- home town is -next-.
Who is this ‘they’ you refer to?
The only people who ‘own’ Chicago are the gangs. That moron Emmanuel certainly doesn’t ‘own’ Chicago. That control freak Dan Madigan thinks HE ‘owns’ Illinois, but he really only ‘owns’ the part of the state legislature that he can bully into doing his will.
IF anyone actually OWNED Chicago besides the gangbangers, it would be the Mob, but they’re gone. Remember?
The “Chicago machine” has ruled that area for 150 unbroken years.