The Carnage Continues - Seven Shot in Chicago Last Night

[Mark 1911]

Another massacre from the city that prides itself on denying the 2nd Amendment. Rahm Emanuel, their blood is on your hands.

Seven people, including two teens, shot at Chicago laundromat | Fox News

 

[Dyerbill]

Can't expect much from a culture that thrives on gangbanging,hip-hop,drugs,guns,pimping,hoes and thugs. No family structure and refusal to educate....sinking and sinking fast.

 

[The Keymaster]

We all know that concealed carry is the cause of all this "new" violence.

 

[ModernGunner]

Said Matthew Gills, "That's all it is is gangs. Gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs. I don't even want to be in Chicago because it's too dangerous." There it is, from a man who lives there.

'Great' job Emanuel, you f*&#$@% moron. Continue to keep the law-abiding disarmed, but don't 'bother' with the "gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs, gangs" who are, obviously, already armed. Because "blood might run in the streets!"

 

[ViperJock]

What they need is one of those Hunger Games Cornicopias. Maybe one per square mile. The problem will sort itself out.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Most here at INGO would be shocked at how clueless Chicagoans are about guns.

I took Forensic Evidence as a 3L at C-K. The Professor (Krent, the guy on A&E with Bill Curtis) brought in a reformed Chicago gangster (BGD) to talk to the class.

One of my classmates asked given that handguns were illegal in Chicago, how could his gang have any guns? (Yes, they really think like this there). The former gangster replied that there were over 150 guns (yes, he used that number) in his father's house when he was growing up. The class murmured in amazement.

Chicago eats guns like the Omaha eats Cheerios, by the box. The city's response is to make it harder for the decent, normal citizens to arm themselves against the former BGD that I met that day.

Rahm's barriers to exercise a constitutional right may work on the Gold Coast where Biff and Muffy will actually follow Rahm's rules, after they walk their dog in matching sneakers and then get a latte, but the guys pulling the triggers, at each other, in Englewood, Back of the Yards and Austin could give a flying frig what Rahm does.

 

[JettaKnight]

Another massacre from the city that prides itself on denying the 2nd Amendment. Rahm Emanuel, their blood is on your hands.

I don't like hearing the left say, "The NRA has blood on its hands." so I don't accept this kind of talk here at INGO.

Seriously, we condemn the left for "not letting a tragedy go to waste" and aren't we doing the same thing? And please don't give me a line about how we're right and their wrong so it's OK. Seven people are [STRIKE]dead[/STRIKE] bloody*, residents are cowering in their home (most likely unarmed). Let's go at it from that angle - there's people who have to live in these neighborhoods - why can't they be allowed to defend themselves; because it's obvious the police won't. Level the playing field, so to speak.



Do I think Chicago's failed policy of gun control contribute to this? Yes, but not entirely. We have shooting deaths from gang related activity here in Indiana yet carrying a handgun is pretty unrestricted, so gun control can't be the sole factor in Chicago's homicides.




* EDIT: Misread article.

 

[sb0]

I don't like hearing the left say, "The NRA has blood on its hands." so I don't accept this kind of talk here at INGO.

I think it'd be perfectly valid to say someone had blood on their hands... if they actually did. Therein lies the difference.

That being said, Rahm doesn't have blood on his hands for 95% of these shootings, because 95% of these shootings are ghetto trash who couldn't care less about gun laws shooting each other.

 

[Mark 1911]

I don't like hearing the left say, "The NRA has blood on its hands." so I don't accept this kind of talk here at INGO.

The NRA is not actively attempting to disarm Chicagoans, has not spent decades building a culture that denies the 2nd Amendment, or trying to limit as much as possible those places where firearms can be carried once concealed carry laws were technically enacted, or dragging their feet as much as possible on implementing the licensing process. Those impediments are on Rahm's watch, not the NRA's. And those impediments directly interfere with the ability of citizens to defend themselves.

 

[cbhausen]

I don't like hearing the left say, "The NRA has blood on its hands." so I don't accept this kind of talk here at INGO.

Seriously, we condemn the left for "not letting a tragedy go to waste" and aren't we doing the same thing? And please don't give me a line about how we're right and their wrong so it's OK. Seven people are dead, residents are cowering in their home (most likely unarmed). Let's go at it from that angle - there's people who have to live in these neighborhoods - why can't they be allowed to defend themselves; because it's obvious the police won't. Level the playing field, so to speak.



Do I think Chicago's failed policy of gun control contribute to this? Yes, but not entirely. We have shooting deaths from gang related activity here in Indiana yet carrying a handgun is pretty unrestricted, so gun control can't be the sole factor in Chicago's homicides.

Try reading the linked article next time. Nobody died in these shootings, at least at the time it was written. And carrying a handgun in Indiana is VERY restricted IMO.

 

[JettaKnight]

Try reading the linked article next time. Nobody died in these shootings, at least at the time it was written. And carrying a handgun in Indiana is VERY restricted IMO.

FIFY.

You were kidding, right? I don't see how the opinion "Very Restricted" can be defended. Pretty much the only restriction is you need a license. And the cost of the Larry is low and the qualifications to get one is pretty low...

Maybe you need to look at other states to compare.

 

[cbhausen]

FIFY.

You were kidding, right? I don't see how the opinion "Very Restricted" can be defended. Pretty much the only restriction is you need a license. And the cost of the Larry is low and the qualifications to get one is pretty low...

Maybe you need to look at other states to compare.

How restrictive would you or the ACLU think it was if the State of Indiana required an LTV (License to Vote)? And what if it cost $125 for a lifetime LTV? Would that not disenfranchise voters? And therefore could it not be said many Indiana residents are being denied their Constitutional rights if they cannot afford an LTCH?

YES, I think Indiana is VERY restrictive when it comes to carrying a handgun. And I don't look at other states for comparison. I look to the US Constitution, and only a handful of states seem to recognize the Second Amendment right now.

 

[Smokepole]

Try reading the linked article next time. Nobody died in these shootings, at least at the time it was written. And carrying a handgun in Indiana is VERY restricted IMO.

They didn't die, but they did bleed. A lot if they were in serious and/or worse condition. And the gun laws in Indiana are more favorable to gun owner that a lot of states. Texas comes to mind.

 

[LPMan59]

Isn't Indianapolis outpacing Chicago for shootings/homicides this year proportionally speaking?

 

[SERparacord]

Why is this even news. Every major city has gang problems, it's not going away till kids have parents again.

 

[tomrey]

Take it from someone who works in the hospitals they listed frequently I wish I could carry while in Chicago! This a common problem in Chicago and its not even comfortable to drive in the area.

 

[ATM]

FIFY.

You were kidding, right? I don't see how the opinion "Very Restricted" can be defended. Pretty much the only restriction is you need a license. And the cost of the Larry is low and the qualifications to get one is pretty low...

Maybe you need to look at other states to compare.

Absolutely restricted. Until just a few years ago, Indiana was easily one of the most restrictive in the nation as they made it illegal to even transport a handgun to the range unloaded and locked away out of reach. Compared to most other states, we are still more restricted here - unlicensed open carry of handguns is the norm in the majority of states.

The ease of purchasing the required exception to those restrictions here negates nothing.

...And the gun laws in Indiana are more favorable to gun owner that a lot of states. Texas comes to mind.

By "a lot", I assume you mean a few. Indiana's spot is among the worst minority of states which criminalize carrying a handgun in public by any means.

There are no favorable gun laws, only less restrictive gun laws - which most other states have.