Gun controllers: how would you deal with the rise in muggings in Lincoln Park and Lakeview?

[LoZoccolo]

P.S. Thanks a lot.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Air strikes. Either fixed wing or helicopter -- I'm cool with either. n/t

[hlthe2b]

6. Unmanned drones... Mustard gas, nuclear strike!

Napalm, scorched earth fires, let loose the tigers! See, the possibilities are endless! ;)

[villager]

2. This would be by muggers using guns, yes?

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. At least one of the muggings involved a gun, yes. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

3. I'd ban Ralph Nader from politics, for life.

[hlthe2b]

7. that's the ticket!

[tridim]

4. Sidearms for all toddlers and dogs.

[rrneck]

8. No good.

Dogs don't have thumbs. Maybe some sort of side slung minigun perhaps...

[tridim]

12. DOG FIRES GUN, HITS MAN.; Knocks Over a Shotgun and Charge Grazes Frank Talleur's Face.

A Newfoundland dog fired off a double-barreled shotgun yesterday and wounded Frank Talleur of Corona Avenue, Corona, L.I. The wounded man's brother, Gustav Talleu, runs a coal yard at Strong's Causeway, Flushing, where the young man is employed. At night a big Newfoundland dog is let loose in the place to guard the yard.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C07E1D6173EE233A25756C1A9659C946997D6CF

Anything is indeed possible, but I do like your idea of the body mounted minigun. I trust dogs more than I trust gun nuts.

[rrneck]

14. Newfies have always been hard to train

in the finer points of firearms safety.

They are also very sweet, probably because they are so big and strong. Small dogs with attitude, like small people, are the ones you have to watch.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. The Edie Falco character CC Cunningham on 30 Rock...

...was shot in the face by her dog.

As Aristotle so perspicaciously observed, Life imitates Art.

[Demobrat]

9. Lock up anybody who possesses a gun illegally or uses a gun

in the commission of a crime - for life. No parole. And that includes first offenders and juveniles. It would be worth the cost to get the gun nuts off the streets.

[spin]

11. Sounds good to me. That's REAL gun control...

assuming the crime is a serious one. Like using a firearm to commit a robbery, carjacking, murder etc.

Carrying one illegally might only get the prep 5 to 10.

[Demobrat]

19. Sure it seems harsh.

But what if every dirtbag out there knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that breaking ANY law having to do with gun possession or use would automatically result in being taken off the streets - permanently? It might take a while, but eventually the streets would be safe again.

[spin]

21. Most criminals would leave their guns at home...

unless they actually planned to attack someone.

The unplanned encounter on the street with another criminal would be less deadly and less likely to injure innocent bystanders.

Unfortunately, those caught with illegal weapons often only receive little or no punishment.

In Massachusetts, the state’s highest court says that defendants solely charged with illegal gun possession cannot be held without bail on the grounds that they might pose a danger to others. The Supreme Judicial Court says illegal gun possession alone is a crime that has no victims and is passive.

The SJC’s 4-1 ruling rejects Bristol District Attorney Samuel Sutter’s efforts to detained anyone charged with illegally possessing a gun prior to trial in his jurisdiction. Massachusett’s high court heard the case because a lower court would not allow Sutter to hold several people on gun charges for 90 days.

The court's majority noted that the crime is not included in law 58A, which lists the charges that should come with a dangerousness hearing. Justice Spina noted that it is the illegal use of a fire arm and not the mere illegal possession of the weapon that poses a risk of physical harm.

As a result of the SJC ruling, eight criminal defendants in Bristol County can now go free. Sutter says that he will now try to push for at least $25,000 bail. He also wants the state legislature to amend the dangerousness statute so that gun possession cases are included.

Dangerousness hearings are held to determine whether releasing a defendant on bail will pose a danger to others. A judge can opt not to release the person or to impose a large bail sum if the defendant is determined to be dangerous. Sutter had argued that the statute contains language that gives him the authority to insist that dangerousness hearings be held for criminal defendants that have been charged in the last several years.
http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/05/illegal_gun_possession_is_a_vi.html

[Demobrat]

27. That's the problem.

There's no reason not to possess and/or use guns illegally, because there's no punishment. But how many of the A-holes who eventually do real damage to innocent bystanders have totally clean records? If they were put away permanently the FIRST TIME they broke ANY gun law we'd at least have a good start on keeping innocent people safe from these nuts.

[Statistical]

17. Life for illegal possesion.... kinda a waste of time when it gets ovrerturned by SCOTUS n/t

Severity of the punishment rarely affects those who violate the law.
Even when the penalty for adultery was stoning (likely one of the worst ways to go) people still did it.

If we simply enforced 100% of the time the existing 5 years sentence for illegal possession it would have a substantial reduction in the number of firearms used in commission of a crime.

Felons don't fear any sentence if the likelihood of actually having to do the time is essentially 0%.

[rrneck]

25. MItigating circumstances come to mind.

What if somebody had done time for a felony and had been paroled and stayed out of trouble but still lived in a tough neighborhood and felt like it was worth the risk to have a firearm? It sounds like that would really put them between a rock and hard place.

[Statistical]

29. I agree it is unfortunate however any support for felons getting firearms (no matter how limited) ..

is political suicide.

There are a lot of non-violent felons that it doesn't really make sense they are prohibited from firearms.

A habitual person w/ temper problem who gets assaults knocked down to misdemeanor can have a weapon.
Someone who cheated on their taxes and got felony tax evasion = no firearms for life.

However given the reality of politics today it is not a battle worth fighting. Can you imagine how brady would spin any attempt to give reformed criminals or non violent felons the ability to regain firearm access?

Back to my point (which most people missed because I forgot to remove the n/t) the 5 years rules is horribly unenforced so felons don't fear it. Making it 10, 20, 80 years wouldn't matter if it is still virtually never enforced.

Which would have more preventive power to you?
50 year sentence that is only enforced 1% of the time
5 year sentence that is enforced 95% of the time

[rrneck]

31. Makes sense.

You have a good point, especially regarding the political realities.

I'm not very familiar with the nuts and bolts of the criminal justice system. (And I kind of like it that way). It seems that mandatory sentencing runs counter to the way I see firearms ownership. I figure I can't tell people they can't have a gun if I don't know their particular life circumstances, so it seems that the system should have a measure of flexibility as well.

I'll have to scratch my head over it some more.

[Demobrat]

30. If we locked up anybody who broke any gun law permanently

THE FIRST TIME they were caught the question would be moot - because the neighborhood would be much safer.

[rrneck]

32. A life sentence

for the posession of a particular type of technology?

Way, way too much.

[Demobrat]

34. Not possession. ILLEGAL possession.

I'm not advocating locking people up who buy and use guns legally. If somebody wants to buy a gun legally and hunt squirrel with it I'm fine with that. But if they're not allowed to buy a gun legally and they obtain one some other way - away they go. I they use a gun in the commission of a crime, any crime - bye bye. If they break ANY gun law in any way remove them from society. Society would be much better off.

[rrneck]

35. I appreciate your sentiment

but that's too draconian for me.

We don't prosecute evil people, we prosecute evil acts. It makes no more sense to me to attach such an excessive penalty to an object.

The use of a firearm to significantly increase the disparity of force between assailant and victim should certainly carry a much stiffer penalty along with greater certainty of incarceration for the full term of the penalty. But individual circumstances can vary. There aren't just good guys and bad guys in the world. Sometimes there are bad guys trying to be good, and good guys who go bad. That's why we have a measure of judicial leeway in sentencing.

A really stiff penalty relating to guns won't necessarily bring an equitable remedy to the problem given the corollary impact on the criminal justice and penal systems as well as the societal ramifications involving real lives of frequently imperfect people. Humans are very resourceful and frequently unpredictable, so it seems to me we should always have a penal system designed to take into consideration the individual circumstances of people's lives.

[Demobrat]

36. Which is why it's fine for some people to have guns.

If you live in a place where there's a good chance of finding a rattlesnake on your back porch one fine morning there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a shotgun handy. But if you broke the law to obtain the shotgun all bets are off. Responsible, legal gun owners would have nothing to worry about and the rest of us would be safe(r) from the criminals.

[X_Digger]

37. iirc, somewhere around 80% of violent crime..

.. does not involve a firearm.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[Demobrat]

38. Do you have a stat for violent crime

that results in death? Your link only shows non-fatal crimes. I'd be very interested to know what percentage of fatal crimes involve a firearm.

[X_Digger]

40. *nod* it's there, but scroll down..

66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

[Demobrat]

41. That's over 10,000 people who would probably

be alive today if not for the proliferation of firearms in this country. And that's just one year. And we as a society have decided that that's okay. Oh well, what's a few thousand dead people compared to the right of every dirtbag who wants one to accumulate an arsenal?

[X_Digger]

42. As a percentage..

of the 4.7m violent crimes committed in 2005, it's rather small. The good news is that preliminary data on crime for 2008 (see http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/index.html) shows another year of drops- we're back to rates not seen since the 60's for some crimes. * eta: 2005 seems to have been the 'high water mark' for crime in the last decade. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_3.html)

Check back at the UCR in October, the FBI will release a more detailed report for 2008 that aggregates the state data and provides a historic graph, etc.

[spin]

10. Obviously you are talking about Chicago..

Links are nice: (Not everyone is familiar with Chicago.)

Chicago police repeated their central message to dozens of Lincoln Park residents who piled into a sweltering fieldhouse Thursday night: Know your surroundings.

High-ranking officers met with about 75 people who packed into the Lincoln Park Cultural Center, 2045 N. Lincoln Park West, to discuss a rash of violent muggings that have occurred over the past few weeks.

Police were joined by representatives from the Cook County state's attorney's office and members of the Guardian Angels, who gave demonstrations of how residents can defend and protect themselves.

Organizers said the meeting was important because many residents and bargoers feel artificially safe in the trendy North Side neighborhood, leaving themselves vulnerable.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-lincoln-park-robberies-14aug14,0,5918061.story

In light of the recent muggings in Lincoln Park and Lakeview, Chicago police and some North Side aldermen are hosting a public meeting where they'll provide information on personal safety.

Initially, there were four strong-armed robberies in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, but since then there have been reports about other robberies and attempted robberies in the Lakeview, Rogers Park and Ravenswood neighborhoods.

Police recommend residents avoid traveling alone in dark, late hours of the night.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6962900

As a gun advocate, I would advise citizens to leave Chicago. The weather sucks, the city is crime ridden and violent and the local government is corrupt. To top it all off, you can't own a handgun or legally carry one to protect yourself, while the criminals can just ignore the laws and enjoy the advantages of living in a city that's very friendly to the criminal element. The Chicago Bears are also disappointing.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. No mention of the Cubs? n/t

[spin]

22. I'm not a big baseball fan, but

The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series championship since 1908 and have not appeared in the Fall Classic since 1945. Between their next postseason appearance in 1984 and their most recent in 2008, they have only made the postseason six times. It is the longest title drought in all four of the major American professional sports leagues, which includes the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL, as well as, of course, Major League Baseball. In fact, the Cubs' last World Series title occurred before those other three leagues even existed, and even the Cubs' last World Series appearance predates the founding of the NBA. The Cubs' 3–2 series victory over the Atlanta Braves in the 2003 NLDS was the franchise's first postseason series win since the 1908 championship.

At 28-55-1, the Cubs have won fewer postseason games in their history than any of the 16 original pre-expansion major league teams, and their win percentage of .337 is also by far the lowest.<45> They have lost the last three games in eight of their ten postseason appearances between 1932 and 2008, being swept in five of the eight. Since 1984, their postseason record has been 9-22, a win percentage of .280, and between 2003 and 2008, the team has lost its last nine postseason games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Cubs#Dismal_postseason_record_and_championship_drought

Yes, you could add the Cubs to my list of reasons to leave Chicago.

[divideandconquer]

13. Immediate death penalty

Isn't that what gun nuts jack off about?

[Statistical]

18. No but aparently it is what "divideandconquer "s do. n/t

[Demobrat]

20. No they jack off about

domination. Death is just a side benefit.

[cdsilv]

24. Invite Dick Cheney to move to town....n/t

[rrneck]

26. I'd call you a smart ass

but only the last half of the term would be accurate.

[Demobrat]

39. Name-calling is so macho.

But not as macho as waving your mechanical weenie.

[rrneck]

43. Lock 'em up and throw away the key!

Now there's a mechanical weenie. Stick it in and twist it hard.



At some point "giving them more time" will reach a point of diminishing returns. Do you think it would be more appropriate to simply execute those who posess an illegal firearm?

[Demobrat]

44. No, not execute.

Just put them someplace where their ejaculations don't get on anybody but themselves.

[rrneck]

45. Well, I tried

more than once to have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject. Get back to me when you get to high school.

[Demobrat]

46. Post #26 is your idea of a reasonable discussion?

Bwahahahahaha! No wonder you're a gun nut. Using your words is obviously not an option for you.

[rrneck]

47. Yes I made a mistake...

Post #20
Demobrat (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. No they jack off about domination. Death is just a side benefit.

I responded in kind. Run along now and play.

[JonQ]

23. Managed to make it all the way to 13

before the sexual innuendo started. The grabbers are slipping.

[iverglas]

28. I'm sure there are a lot of wise thoughts here

but no time ...

Just wondering. What does one's position on gun control have to do with this question?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!