Chicago & Policing (new title)

[selil]

The entire violence agrument is being framed as an anti-gun argument instead of the crime issues of indigent criminal enterprise.

[AdamG]

The entire violence agrument is being framed as an anti-gun argument instead of the crime issues of indigent criminal enterprise.

Orwellian in it's scope, ain't it?

[MattC86]

Speaking as a very distinct minority within the SWJ - a pro-gun control liberal - who also resides in Chicago during the summer, I have to say (1) I like Da Mare, and (2) I don't think you can try to deal with the issue of gang violence without gun control.

Look at the parallel - we try to control weapons when we're doing stability ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, don't we? At least to a degree. I agree that the problem isn't entirely guns, but it is at least part of the issue here. Good on Daley.

And finally, you know you live in an exciting place when the police spokeswoman calls a Thursday night with eight (nonfatal) shootings "a relatively quiet evening."

Regards,

Matt

[Ron Humphrey]

Look at the parallel - we try to control weapons when we're doing stability ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, don't we? At least to a degree. I agree that the problem isn't entirely guns, but it is at least part of the issue here. Good on Daley.

And finally, you know you live in an exciting place when the police spokeswoman calls a Thursday night with eight (nonfatal) shootings "a relatively quiet evening."

Regards,

Matt

Don't most Iraqi's own weapons and we don't take the standard ones from them but mainly the big super nasty kinds?

At least I thought thats what I've heard and read.

[selil]

Speaking as a very distinct minority within the SWJ - a pro-gun control liberal - who also resides in Chicago during the summer, I have to say (1) I like Da Mare, and (2) I don't think you can try to deal with the issue of gang violence without gun control.

Look at the parallel - we try to control weapons when we're doing stability ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, don't we? At least to a degree. I agree that the problem isn't entirely guns, but it is at least part of the issue here. Good on Daley.

And finally, you know you live in an exciting place when the police spokeswoman calls a Thursday night with eight (nonfatal) shootings "a relatively quiet evening."

Politics aside Matt, I have no problem with your position. I disagree based on a few simple facts.

1) The number of people dying due to violence may seem horrific but it is still way below epidemic levels. The actual violence numbers have not changed significantly just the reporting of them. That is politics.

2) The secondary change is that they reporting this as "school related" shootings though NONE of the actual shootings happened near or in a school.

This is a gang related fight and like any gang related violence weapons have less to do with the situation than the inter-gang politics.

Chicago already has some of the most severe weapons laws of any city in America. If gun-laws worked then Chicago and Washington DC should be some of the safest cities in America. The Chicago authorities though are simply using this minor outbreak of violence in a particular population for political expediency.

There is also some evidence that the city officials do not want to stop violence just transfer it from the gangs involved to sanctioned authority by the police who will have high power rifles. Because, violence by the police doesn't count I guess.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by MattC:

Speaking as a very distinct minority within the SWJ - a pro-gun control liberal - who also resides in Chicago during the summer, I have to say (1) I like Da Mare, and (2) I don't think you can try to deal with the issue of gang violence without gun control.

Richie Daley ("Da Mare") is a leader, but this is all about gun control, and not just in Chicago. He's pushing for statewide restrictions to match Chicago's existing restrictions (which are literally confiscatory), and the rest of Illinois just isn't having it. So, now it's time to justify the argument.

Problem is, gun enforcement has been more of the problem. Know this for a fact, because I sat on a Federal GJ out of the Northern District of IL hearing cases, and guns are being transported into Chicago (literally by the hundreds), but very few of them are coming in from other areas in IL. Gangs were bringing them in from places down along the gulf coast (our cases), where the gangs were paying people $50 per semi auto that they purchase, and turn over to the gangs ("Ten gets you 5"). We were a small part of putting a stop to those pipelines - Federal cases, hard time. There's certainly more of it still going on.

Matt, a bigger part of the problem is Cook County government. Remember, the City of Chicago doesn't run the judicial system - it's Cook County or State of Illinois. There's where the real problems exist. The corruption and patronage is so bad in those areas, and it has so hamstrung law enforcement efforts in different areas, that I am just amazed that people just sit there and take it.

Sorry, but after getting a clear view from behind the curtain, this is all just hype.

[Schmedlap]

The term "gun control" has been muddled. Does it mean legislation aimed at preventing certain individuals from possessing certain types of firearms? Or does it mean the act of preventing certain individuals from possessing certain firearms? There is a huge difference. The former is a goal. The latter is an achievement.

Gun control legislation can only be viewed as a viable approach if we can reasonably expect such laws to have their intended effect, and if that intended effect serves some purpose. The intended effect is to disarm criminals. The purpose is to improve public safety. Gun control for its own sake was not the original purpose behind the movement. It is the purpose today.

The popular gun control activist movement seeks legislation that casts too wide of a net. This causes some serious problems. Banning the possession of firearms for all residents because of the foolishness of a small minority of residents is generally not appreciated by the law abiding folks. It is also highly doubtful that it has the intended effect of disarming the criminals. I live in DC and my firearms are locked in a case in my parent's basement 500 miles away because of our "gun control" laws. The laws compel me to disarm, but not the criminals. That is why there is still a huge problem in DC with gun-related (aka, armed criminal-related) crimes.

The single-minded focus on a legislative approach to abridge the rights of all gun owners only succeeds in polarizing the debate into gun owners' rights versus legislative activism. Most people do not commit gun crimes, so when their right to own a firearm is infringed upon because some activists had a bright idea, they predictably get defensive. The obvious target of their ire is the activist movement that seeks to disarm them. In other words, the gun control activists have created political opposition for no good reason, rather than working towards a shared goal of improving public safety. I see no way for these two factions to ever get to the point of working together to disarm criminals unless the activists make a good faith concession by dropping their attempts to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. So long as the gun control through legislation movement seeks to cast too wide of a net to catch a small group of deviants with a policy of highly dubious merit, the issue is destined to be a non-starter.

The gun control activists have lost focus on their reason for being. Gun control began as an idea for how to improve public safety. The inherent flaw of disarming entire locales rather than targeting criminals caused a backlash. Rather than recognize this obvious, glaring error and changing course, groupthink took hold of the movement. Now it is a fellowship of determined activists who seek a goal for its own sake, simply because their opponents are their political enemies. Will legislation aimed at banning ownership of firearms reduce crime? Probably not. But does anyone even care anymore? Probably not.

[AdamG]

(2) I don't think you can try to deal with the issue of gang violence without gun control.

Look at the parallel - we try to control weapons when we're doing stability ops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, don't we? At least to a degree. I agree that the problem isn't entirely guns, but it is at least part of the issue here. Good on Daley.

Swell idea, if only it worked...

Violent crime is worse than ever, say Pcs on the front line
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
Last Updated: 2:15am BST 28/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../nelect227.xml
Gun, knife and gang crime is the worst it has ever been, according to a survey of 1,200 front-line police officers.

Meanwhile, taking a page out of the Kavkaz.org (a Chechen War thing) playbook, Jeremiah Wright continues to sprinkle gasoline on embers in Chicago and elsewhere.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...eremiah-wright

[tequila]

Kavkaz = Jeremiah Wright / Bill Moyers interview = Chicago gangs increasing crime?

Sorry, I'm too busy laughing my ass off.

Also, why does the average Chicago cop on the beat need an M4? Seriously, are the Gangster Disciples or the Latin Kings targeting Chicago cops in straight-up firefights? Or is Mayor Daley's second cousin now employed at Colt?

[zenpundit]

I too live in the Chicago area, though no longer in the city proper.

Daley, who never travels anywhere without a swarm of armed police detective-bodyguards, has always been in favor of gun confiscation since his days as a State's Attorney for Cook County. Chicago bans possession of handguns unless they were registered prior to 1982 and the rest of Illinois has stronger gun control laws than 43 other states.

What Chicago does not have - and what you will not see due to Daley machine alliances with organized crime, including street gangs - is gang control.

[MattC86]

Sorry it took so long to respond to the beating here. I'll just say this. The Chicago Tribune did a bit a few years ago called "Homicide: Scourge of a City," and claimed that since Daley's election, violent crime had dropped in Chicago by 50%. Murders under 500 a year for the first time in 40 years. Heck, I'm 22 and I can remember when they were well over 900. I won't chalk it up to gun control - you all clearly know more than I do. But he's done a good job with crime in general, and while he's pushing his anti-gun agenda during this rash of shootings (apparently the CPD doesn't count, though - the M4s are a bit of overkill), he's also pushing a lot of positive initiatives; after-school programs, increased arts and sports funding for public schools, etc.

And yeah, Ron, you're right - I think an AK or equivalent is still allowed. Not quite "gun control" as we know it Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,

Matt