11, including child, 3, shot in Chicago park

[gumboot]

Wow. Yeah, more ignorance from people who don't live here. With all due respect gumboot, you're wrong in your assumption. It's not a gun or a law problem. It's a people problem. Chicago has banned handguns for years. No carrying outside of your home. At all. There's proof positive that it's a people problem.

Chicago banning handguns outside the home is meaningless in the context of a society that regards ownership of firearms to be a constitutional right. This isn't even about gun control laws, and those who think increasing gun control laws will change anything are dreaming.

It's about society's attitude towards weapons. That's the fundamental underlying problem, and no amount of law changes will make any difference at all.

You see, other countries have bad people who commit violence too. Other countries have quite relaxed gun control laws, and even comparably high gun ownership. None of these countries can hold a candle to the amount of death and harm that occurs in the US due to guns.

My own country quite possibly has more guns per capita than the US, and on many levels has very relaxed gun ownership laws. We also have violent crime, and criminal gangs. And yet gun violence is exceptionally rare. Even our most hardened criminals seldom use firearms. The difference is not a lack of weapons. The difference is not that we live in some sort of magical land of loving harmony. The difference is not draconian gun control laws. The difference is society, as a whole, has a completely different attitude to guns.

The fact is, no other western country considers gun ownership to be a right.

Now, to be clear, I'm not stating this as a criticism. If you guys in the US consider it an important right, that's fine. You're entitled to run your society that way. But you should be honest enough to acknowledge and accept that there is a negative consequence to that right. As there are for all rights.

Events like this are that consequence.

 

[triforcharity]

I think annual, in person, registration of all firearms- far from being silly, is the most likely way to combat guns getting into the hands of criminals. Since a law abiding citizen cannot be stopped from purchasing a gun, the responsibility for keeping that gun out of the hands of a criminal falls upon the owner.
If I faced a stiff penalty for not being able to produce my legal firearm once per year for registration, I would be a hell of a lot less likely to lose it, give it away, or let it be stolen.

I have actually been guilty of losing a shotgun. Had it in a closet twenty years and four addresses ago- no idea where it ended up.

Unconstitutional. And either way, I'm not convinced this would actually help.

 

[Distracted1]

Unconstitutional. And either way, I'm not convinced this would actually help.

Unconstitutional? how so?

 

[triforcharity]

Why shouldn't the legal purchasers of these guns be held responsible for what happened to them?

Criminally, or civilly? (SP?) Criminally, no, absolutely not. If someone steals your car, should you be held responsible if they rob a bank and use your car as the getaway car? No. Civilly, you MAY be, just depends on the state. And again, here's a novel concept, why not hold you know, the criminal responsible? Unless someone is grossly negligent, I see no reason to hold the law abiding victim to blame.

 

[triforcharity]

Chicago banning handguns outside the home is meaningless in the context of a society that regards ownership of firearms to be a constitutional right. This isn't even about gun control laws, and those who think increasing gun control laws will change anything are dreaming.

It's about society's attitude towards weapons. That's the fundamental underlying problem, and no amount of law changes will make any difference at all.

You see, other countries have bad people who commit violence too. Other countries have quite relaxed gun control laws, and even comparably high gun ownership. None of these countries can hold a candle to the amount of death and harm that occurs in the US due to guns.

Again, it's not a gun problem. It's a people committing crimes. It's a people problem. As you pointed out, NZ has a similar (though I am skeptical of this) amount of guns per capita, and similar laws, crimes with guns are rare. However, it's not a gun issue. It's a respect for human life issue. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing any time in the near future.

My own country quite possibly has more guns per capita than the US, and on many levels has very relaxed gun ownership laws.

Do you have some numbers? I'd like to see the comparison. And also for your gun laws? Are they universal throughout NZ? I'm honestly curious. I think you're one of the more level headed posters on the "other" side as I, so I'd like to get some more info.

We also have violent crime, and criminal gangs. And yet gun violence is exceptionally rare. Even our most hardened criminals seldom use firearms. The difference is not a lack of weapons. The difference is not that we live in some sort of magical land of loving harmony. The difference is not draconian gun control laws. The difference is society, as a whole, has a completely different attitude to guns.

Again, I think it's more of a view of others, and being respectful of each other that the US seems to lack, as a whole. It's not the attitude towards guns, it's the attitude towards each other.

The fact is, no other western country considers gun ownership to be a right.

According to some posters here, (well, one specifically) the UK does....... I know, I laughed too.

Now, to be clear, I'm not stating this as a criticism. If you guys in the US consider it an important right, that's fine. You're entitled to run your society that way. But you should be honest enough to acknowledge and accept that there is a negative consequence to that right. As there are for all rights.

Events like this are that consequence.

Of course there's a downside to our rights. Right to free speech means that any jackass, can say pretty much whatever he want's, even if it's incredibly offensive, hurtful, and disrespectful, and it's protected. But, it's our right, and one that should not change.

Are there any easy solutions? No. Not in my opinion. Maybe better access to better healthcare might help, though I am not sure. Certainly if we took better care of the mentally ill, and made mental health care more accessible, that may help.

 

[triforcharity]

Unconstitutional? how so?

Illegal search. You've got no reason to inspect my firearm, for any reason, ever, unless you've got probable cause to suspect a crime has occurred.

 

[Distracted1]

Illegal search. You've got no reason to inspect my firearm, for any reason, ever, unless you've got probable cause to suspect a crime has occurred.

Inspection is not a requirement. Only proof of possession. No longer possessing it should be a crime.

 

[triforcharity]

So, a picture? How am I going to prove I still own it? Wouldn't someone in authority have to view it in person? That's an inspection.

 

[Distracted1]

looked at from that angle, I guess it would be an inspection. Does that make any requirement to produce a possession (like an automobile, or an I.D.) unconstitutional?

Is "stop and frisk" constitutional? Is it unconstitutional to be searched by the TSA?

 

[gumboot]

Again, it's not a gun problem. It's a people committing crimes.

That's a symptom, not the root cause.

It's a people problem.

All problems with society are people problems.

As you pointed out, NZ has a similar (though I am skeptical of this) amount of guns per capita, and similar laws, crimes with guns are rare. However, it's not a gun issue.

I didn't claim it was a gun issue.

It's a respect for human life issue.

I doubt that's it. Even if human life is cheaper in the USA than elsewhere (everything I've seen would suggest otherwise) this seems more like another symptom of the problem, rather than the root cause. All humans inherently value human life. It's encoded into our DNA. We only stop valuing it when our environment cheapens it, and guns are an excellent way of cheapening the value of human life because they make it so much easier to take it away. One little squeeze with one little finger and poof.

Do you have some numbers? I'd like to see the comparison.

Concrete numbers are hard to come by because, like the US, we don't register guns. But most estimates I've seen tend to put us in the top 5, if not the top 3, for guns per capita. I don't think we're as high as the US, but we're up there.

And also for your gun laws? Are they universal throughout NZ?

Our approach to gun control is that we license gun owners. We're a single state nation, with a single set of laws and single law enforcement organisation. (Obviously we have local body bylaws for things like where you can walk your dog and how long you can park on a street).

Again, I think it's more of a view of others, and being respectful of each other that the US seems to lack, as a whole. It's not the attitude towards guns, it's the attitude towards each other.

I think one of those views probably causes the other, but I suspect the attitude towards each other is probably caused by the attitude towards guns. It becomes somewhat self-feeding over time.

Of course there's a downside to our rights. Right to free speech means that any jackass, can say pretty much whatever he want's, even if it's incredibly offensive, hurtful, and disrespectful, and it's protected. But, it's our right, and one that should not change.

I think one of the problems the US has is the whole attitude towards rights and the constitution. The very idea that rights are so fundamental they should never be questioned is just silly. Societies change, and values change, and so do rights. After all, they're a social invention, informed by our cultural values, and those change.

Once upon a time it was considered a father's right to sell his children. Once upon a time it was considered a man's right to beat his wife. Quite obviously, rights can and should change, and any healthy society should constantly be asking itself if they've got it right, instead of perpetuating a fantasy that a bunch of men hundreds of years ago stumbled across the formula for a perfect society.

 

[triforcharity]

looked at from that angle, I guess it would be an inspection.

It would. I agree.

Does that make any requirement to produce a possession (like an automobile, or an I.D.) unconstitutional?

Depends: what are they inspecting for? Are they inspecting it for safety issues? If so, no. You're not going to be charged with a crime if your car has ****** brakes. However, if you're asking to inspect my gun, I must bring it down, or face a criminal charge. This is illegal. It's also a violation of my 5th amendment right to not be forced to incriminate myself. And ID is again, not going to get you charged with a crime.

Is "stop and frisk" constitutional? Is it unconstitutional to be searched by the TSA?

S&F has usually been ruled unconstitutional, without RAS. (Reasonable articulated suspicion) See NY's recent ruling in NY state court. WRT: The TSA, no, because you're voluntarily submitting to it, as a condition of flying. Flying is not a protected right. Having a gun is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure. Strictest gun laws around and the murder capital.

Slack enforcement of gun laws. Little effort to combat gang activity.

Straw purchases are very much illegal in all 50 states, and they are not a common way for criminals to get guns. So it seems like this has to be largely an enforcement problem with existing laws.



http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm

That's why you buy the guns first then sell them to some dude on the street in perfectly legal transaction.

You want to curb the flow of guns into the illegal market, registration, but that is not ever going to happen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Almost ALL of what you're suggesting, is unconstitutional. I'll take less time, and hilite what's not.

The bolded is just silly, and would accomplish nothing, other than costing millions of millions of dollars.

Tracing back guns to their buyers who sold them to criminals is a waste of time clearly, we just need to accept that heavily armed criminals are here to stay, to do otherwise would be unamerican.

 

[WildCat]

These sorts of events are simply the inevitable consequences of America's attitude to gun ownership. To be completely honest I'm surprised people even bother to post these sorts of things. Aren't you all used to them by now? the drug war.

ftfy

 

[WildCat]

Why was a 3 yr old outside after 10pm?

Likely mama brought him there so she could hang out with her gangbanging boyfriend.

 

[WildCat]

You can't buy a handgun legally out of your state of residence, without the paperwork and background checks, and you would then have to pick the handgun up from a Chicago FFL holder. I think Chicago still bans handgun sales altogether though, so you couldn't even do that. I don't think any other big city totally bans handgun sales.

There are no gun sales allowed in Chicago, however it's perfectly legal for a Chicago resident to buy a gun from any FFL in the state of Illinois.

 

[WildCat]

And yes, while Chicago, and Illinois generally, have had stricter laws, there is the obvious problem of weapon flow from everywhere else.



Linky.

Since there is not a single gun store in Chicago, 100% of them were sold somewhere else.

This is a surprise somehow?

 

[WildCat]

Why shouldn't the legal purchasers of these guns be held responsible for what happened to them?

Good luck figuring who that was, since in nearly all cases the serial numbers are removed from guns used by gangbangers.

 

[WildCat]

That's why you buy the guns first then sell them to some dude on the street in perfectly legal transaction.

There's nothing "perfectly legal" about that transaction in the state of Illinois. And it will probably come as a shock to you, but gangbangers don't buy their guns legally.

You want to curb the flow of guns into the illegal market, registration, but that is not ever going to happen.

Registration has never curbed the flow of illegal guns, and its proponents never even explain how it is supposed to do that anyway.

It is quite useful, however, as a tool to confiscate them from the law abiding once lawmakers decide to make previously legal guns illegal.

I suppose this is where some pedantic posters get their underwear in a knot and declare that anything short of a police search isn't really confiscation.

 

[WildCat]

Tracing back guns to their buyers who sold them to criminals is a waste of time clearly, we just need to accept that heavily armed criminals are here to stay, to do otherwise would be unamerican.

You'll have to figure out a way to prevent criminals from removing the serial numbers for that to have a chance of working. Maybe you want to ban files, angle grinders, etc. also?

Not to mention that the gun in the OP can't be traced at all, even if by some miracle the serial number hasn't been removed, because it hasn't been recovered and very likely won't be.