Gun Control

Chicago Mayor and Top Cop Blame Weak Gun Laws for Violence

|

Viewminder

Fourteen fatalities and a total of 82 people shot. It's not Ukraine or Syria, but Chicago. The heartland city, already notorious for its high crime rates, had a surprisingly bloody Independence Day weekend, and its mayor and top cop say it's because gun laws aren't broad enough, when in fact the relevent gun laws are quite broadā€”but that doesn't make them effective. 

Mayor Rahm Emanuel called for more robust restrictions at a press conference yesterday, saying that current "gun laws are the weak link."

Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, whose officers were responsible for shooting five people and killing a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old, stated at a separate press conference that "it all comes down to these guns: there's too many guns coming in and too little punishment going out." This perceived problem exists on "not just on a state, but on a federal level," he believes. "Possession of a loaded firearm," the incredulous McCarthy said, "is not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes."

Can a deficiency in gun laws really be blamed, though? Let's look at the restrictions in place from different levels of government.

Federal law already prohibits convicted felons and people convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, such as domestic violence, from owning firearms.

Open carry is banned by Illinois state law. Getting a concealed carry permit is requires a stack of data: a driver's license, a Firearm Owner I.D., a headshot current as of 30 days, an Illinois Digital I.D., a copy of a 16-hour training certificate, residency information for the previous 10 years, and a $150 fee to boot.

The police board that grants concealed carry permits can deny people for no reason, and they've denied over 800 this year without explanation. On July 4, the Tribune reported that they've been denying people who have no criminal record whatsoever.

wikimedia

Cook County bans the sale of any type of firearm to anyone under 21.

The city of Chicago this year has established severe restrictions that prohibit the sale of a firearm without video evidence and block stores from existing in "99.5 percent of the city," according to the Associated Press.

As evidenced by exactly what happened this weekend, all of this is moot to lawbreakers with black market weapons.

In a city that just yesterday hit 200 homicides for the year, McCarthy understands in principle that it is "illogical" to believe "that government can intercede and prevent this from happening," but he somehow doesn't understand that prohibitions aren't just ineffective, but outright counterproductive toward safety as they make sitting ducks of innocent, law abiding people.

There was a silver lining story to the weekend's violence: one unnamed man with a concealed carry weapon defended himself and three other people against gunmen as they left a party on the far south side of town. But, if McCarthy's and Emanuel's fantasy of even stricter gun laws were a reality, would the death toll have been 18 instead of 14?

NEXT: Should Germans Be Allowed to Read Mein Kampf?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. C’mon Rahm, never let a good crisis go to waste.

      1. All Reverse Flank Aye!

        1. “No, vegetables are sensual. People are sensuous.”

  2. There was a silver lining story to the weekend’s violence: one unnamed man with a concealed carry weapon defended himself and three other people against gunmen as they left a party on the far south side of town. But, if McCarthy’s and Emanuel’s fantasy of even stricter gun laws were a reality, would the death toll have been 18 instead of 14?

    Throw the book at that guy for breaking the law. I’m sure he violated some city, county, or state ordinance by carrying a loaded weapon.

    And don’t give me any of that hero crap, only two people were shot so it’s not like you gun nuts can say he stopped a mass shooting.

    1. @Grand Moff Serious man – Actually, he likely did stop a mass shooting. Not only did he shoot one man with a gun, news stories say two others also shot into his group. Four people could have been killed by three gunmen and four people is the threshold for qualifying as a “mass shooting.”

      What law do you think he might have been breaking by having his gun? Should we arrest him for “discharging a gun in the city limits?” Or maybe, if it was a semi-auto, charge him with “littering” for leaving his empty shell casings on the street? I know, if his opponent fell in the street, he could be charged with “creating a traffic hazard,” right?

  3. Big surprise that victim disarmament doesn’t work.

    1. Well, not for the victims, anyway.

      Criminals and law enforcement agencies lobbying for bigger budgets might have a different take.

  4. “Possession of a loaded firearm,” the incredulous McCarthy said, “is not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes.”

    Especially since other states impose summary death sentences for possession of pellet guns, small amounts of marijuana, the wrong colored truck, or nothing at all.

    1. What good is an unloaded firearm? It’s like a car without gasoline.

  5. MOAR HARDER! It’ll definitely work this time.

    1. Chicago should have put guns under double secret probation.

      1. +1 Errant drive

  6. “Possession of a loaded firearm,” the incredulous McCarthy said, “is not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes.”

    Why on earth would possessing a weapon be considered violent?

    Also, Rahm has to be trolling in that pic. No one could look that smug and punchable on accident.

    1. Everyone pictured in this story looks like an asshole.

      1. Everyone pictured in that story is an asshole.

        Rahm is a typical quasi-prog/statist/Kneel before Zod type political dirt slurper.

        McCarthy is a full on slaver, blue brotherhood = better than you type scumbag.

    2. I hate Illinois Nazis.

      Chicago sure has gone downhill since producing the Murray brothers and Belushi, hasn’t it?

      1. Chicago has long been a cesspool of corruption. And once Mayor Daley got his hands on it, he made it worse.

    3. No one could look that smug and punchable on accident.

      That seems to kind of be Rahm’s thing.

  7. In other news, Iowahawk continues to be a national treasure.

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspo…..abeth.html

    1. Comments are good, too.

    2. Dammit John. Beat me by that much.

      [holds up finger and thumb almost touching]

  8. If “Possession of a loaded firearm” was a felony, won’t all the cops be in jail?

    And if there is “too little punishment going out”, wouldn’t that be Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy’s fault?

    1. “It’s time somebody put their foot down around here, and that foot is ME!”

    2. No, the State’s Attorney – but I don’t see him bitching at her.

      1. Well, she can’t punish ’em if he doesn’t catch ’em.

        1. Well, she can’t punish ’em if he doesn’t catch ’em her daddy doesn’t tell her to.

          You obviously aren’t familiar with Illinois politics…

          1. Nope, and I intend to keep it that way. Please stop sending your rejects to DC.

            1. In my defense, I’ve only lived here for about 2.5 years, and it took my now wife about four years before that to FINALLY convince me, unwillingly, to move here because this is where most of her family lives.

              1. You’re a better husband than I’ll ever be.

                1. You’re a better husband than I’ll ever be.

                  This. I would NEVER move to Chicago under any circumstances short of a MASSIVE payout, and even then I would never leave the house except when it was to get the fuck out of Dodge.

                  1. You’re a better husband than I’ll ever be.

                    This. I would NEVER move to Chicago under any circumstances short of a MASSIVE payout, and even then I would never leave the house except when it was to get the fuck out of Dodge.

                    She is finally starting to wise up to the shit show known as Chicago politics. Showing her real estate listings in Texas where we can get a multi-level home with a couple of fireplaces and a few acres for what we pay here is definitely helping my cause.

          2. That particular one is the Attorney General, and about as toothless as her Daddy had hoped. The Cook County SA is the feckless Anita Alvarez – another of TEAM BLUE’s finest.

  9. [Insert failed public policy here] is failing! We need more [insert failed public policy here]!

    1. This smells like a blockbuster product! The “Public Policy Eight Ball”!

      1. Only available in (R) and (D) versions, but they’re made on the same line in China.

      2. Just ask it a public policy question, shake, and read the answer:

        Q: Will the federal budget be coming down next year?

        A: My sources say no.

  10. Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, whose officers were responsible for shooting five people and killing a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old, stated at a separate press conference that “it all comes down to these guns: there’s too many guns coming in and too little punishment going out.”

    Stomp on the peasants more! More I say! Teach that fear and obedience are the only certain paths to Heaven!

  11. They need a law that prohibits guns from jumping into peoples’ hands and forcing their index finger around the trigger. That will do it. Those evil guns need to be stopped.

  12. These ass clowns are completely devoid of morals. They know goddamn well that prohibition doesn’t work. But they use this tragic weekend to push a broader progressive agenda. And they could care less about the murders of young black men (they probably consider that a bonus). Their agenda is to take guns from white middle class conservatives; the real threat to the government/political class.

    1. There are middle class conservatives in Chicago? Who knew?!

      1. Okay. White middle class conservatives in greater Chicagoland.

      2. I don’t know about “middle class conservative,” but my DL, FOID, and FFL 03 all say Chicago. Everyone here seems fed up with people like Rahmbo and McStreetlights except when it comes time to cast their votes.

    2. They know goddamn well that prohibition doesn’t work.

      That’s only if your premise is that the purpose of prohibition is to solve problems. That’s not the purpose. The purpose is to give more and more power to law enforcement. In that respect it works gangbusters.

  13. In related news, since two (TWO!) people injuried themselves on 7/4 with fireworks, the N.H. fire marshal hits the front page of the local rag to call for a ban on fireworks.

    He hits every single disgusting item on the checklist:

    New Hampshire State Fire Marshal William Degnan is calling for a ban on all “reloadable mortar” style fireworks and eventually, a ban on all consumer fireworks in the state.

    “It is an absolutely serious problem,” said Degnan. “These devices require an untrained person to make a decision about how to shoot these off; where they have to load it, stabilize it and then make sure they’re far enough away from it. That type of human intervention makes situations more prone to injury.”

    I guess “mortar” is the new scare word for “assault” fireworks, because it is totally appropriate to compare a firework to handheld artillery.

    “We’ve been trying to educate people on the hazards of these explosives, and I do say that intentionally; they are explosives by design,” said Degnan. “But education doesn’t always work.”

    Well, no shit they’re “explosive by design” you microcephalic! And, of course, by “education” you mean nanny-state hectoring and indoctrination. If someone disagrees with you, it’s obviously because they weren’t “educated”.

    1. “I’m at my wits’ end,” said Gleason. “My personal philosophy is that these things are dangerous and should not be for public usage. I’m really reluctant to do anything again because it was shot down strongly the first time. But at the end of the day, these things are dangerous and should be off the damned market.”

      I don’t give a shit about your “personal philosophy”. I hope you enter such despair that you kill yourself.

      Consumer fireworks are deceptively dangerous,” said Bliss. “The tip of a sparkler can reach temperatures of 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit. Considering that wood burns at 575 degrees Fahrenheit, you can imagine the serious burn that tip could cause or how that could ignite clothing and start a fire.”

      Translation: My contempt for the average person is so great that I believe that they don’t comprehend that fire is hot.

      “I’m more concerned now than ever,” said Midgeley. “There was a lot of testimony from the fireworks lobbyists in 2012 that this type of thing (40 Dodge Road fire) would never happen again and that fireworks are safe. Now two years later ? in my town ? we have an almost identical situation. If these were still banned, then this kid would still have the full function of his hand.”

      Fuck you Midgeley and fuck that kid. Irresponsible parenting has no bearing on my personal liberty.

      1. you can imagine the serious burn that tip could cause or how that could ignite clothing and start a fire.

        Just the tip?

      2. Is he really suggesting that sparklers should be banned? I burnt myself with a sparkler once. I lived. An so did every other kid I grew up with.

        1. SLD applies, but, I really would rather have my kids play with bottle rockets than sparklers. To get actually hurt with a bottle rocket requires really bad luck or a complete lack of mammalian fear. Getting hurt with a sparkler requires one “oops” or just a moderate amount of stupid.

      3. I think both FSP and movoto mention fireworks freedom as a reason to move to NH

    2. For reference, how many people were injured by stoves in New Hampshire on the Fourth. I’m pretty sure it was more than 2…

      1. We’re talking about assault, reloadable mortar stoves, right?

          1. NUCLEAR STOVES!!!1!111

        1. Worse, semi-automatics.

    3. I guess “mortar” is the new scare word for “assault” fireworks

      No, not really. That’s what the pipe that professional fireworks are launched from is actually called.

      1. That’s what the pipe that professional fireworks are launched from is actually called.

        Same with the unprofessional variety. Shot a ton of them off this weekend. My neighbors love me.

        1. Oh yeah, those mortar fireworks are hands down some of the best.

          1. I even like the mini ones. They’re just fun without being ridiculously loud.

      2. But these people aren’t buying professional fireworks. And he knows that. That’s why he hedges with the term “reloadable mortar” style fireworks. It’s cynical, calculated term designed to scare soccer moms into thinking that those ig’nant rednecks buying fireworks are purchasing weapons of war.

        1. No. He uses that term because that’s what it says on the box.

          Look it up on youtube. To be fair, some are pretty fucking dangerous. They send a shell a couple hundred feet into the air where it makes a really big boom.

          I was shooting off a six pack of Smoke N Mirrors, along with assorted smalls.
          Here’s a link to someone shooting off the same thing, though they had more than six.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ-uchwUdWk
          They’re some serious shit.

          1. Did it say “reloadable mortar” or “reloadable mortar style”. It’s the same word-play the use when talking about the AR-15. It’s not an assault-rifle, but it’s an assault-rifle style weapon. See my point? Again, see what Degan had to say at the beginning of the article:

            Degnan is calling for a ban on all “reloadable mortar” style fireworks and eventually, a ban on all consumer fireworks in the state.

            Unlike you, he’s not overly concerned about the accuracy of the term, just like gun grabbers aren’t overly concerned about the difference between, say, an assault rifle, a carbine, and a semi-auto rifle. He found his opening and he’s going to ram himself in.

            1. They are reloadable tubes you put on the ground that shoot self propelled explosives into the air. They’re called mortars because that’s what they are.

              1. They’re “self propelled” only if you consider the lift charge to be part of the “explosives”. Rockets are self propelled, shells are not.

            2. If you’re having a fit over the word “style,” then you’re totally misplaced. Assault-rifle style weapons are things that look like assault-rifle. These things aren’t like reloadable mortars, they are reloadable mortars.

              Here’s a guy intentionally blowing one up in the tube. Skip to 1:15.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDex1_c33HI

              1. Whatever Bo. If you want to be obtuse to the fact that he’s trying to lump roman candles into the same category as to what you’re describing, then go right ahead. I’m not playing along.

                1. If you want to be obtuse to the fact that he’s trying to lump roman candles into the same category as to what you’re describing, then go right ahead.

                  If you want to be obtuse to the fact that those reloadable mortars are called reloadable mortars because they are mortars that can be reloaded, then go right ahead.

                  http://www.fireworks.com/produ…..rtar-kits/

                  Reloadable mortar kits. It’s right there in the url.

                2. And I must be obtuse because I didn’t see that at all. In fact, I didn’t see the term roman candle mentioned once. Must be my obtuseness that keeps me from seeing it. Fuck, CTRL-F is fucking obtuse as well.

                3. And if you think reloadable mortar is scary, some call them artillery shells. Right on the box. Oooooooooooo scary!

              2. Here’s a guy intentionally blowing one up in the tube.

                I like this one…
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dstGdAHGL30

            3. HM, they really are called reloadable mortars. That is a perfectly accurate and common term used for the consumer fireworks.

              1. HM, they really are called reloadable mortars. That is a perfectly accurate and common term used for the consumer fireworks.

                Nope. The fire chief only said that to make them sound scary like assault rifles. HM said so. He knows better than any of us who buy the things and light them off. HM is really smart like that.

            4. Why am I picturing a massive amateur fireworks show in Keane next July the fourth?

            5. I’m gonna say there’s no fucking way the consumer fireworkers are actually reloadable. Without having used one, I’m pretty sure they are one-time-use, disposable fireworks.

              If they’re reloadable, then the fireworks stands must sell the reloads, right? Do they?

              So, I don’t care what the label says. I can tell you from experience that a package of “Black Cat” firecrackers contains not one single feline, of any color.

              Yeah, its a scare term. Not an accurate description.

              1. Never mind. I see from the link above you can buy reloads.

                Which is good to know.

        2. weapons of war.

          You never had a Roman Candle fight?

    4. I’m not sure. I may lose my libertarian bona-fides here. But by about midnight on July 4 when fireworks were still booming like crazy and keeping both me and my kid awake, I was actively hoping someone would lose a hand.

      1. Wasn’t me. I was done by 10.

      2. I know what you mean. I live in a town where everyone that can’t buy fireworks in their hometown comes for the 4th.

      3. Not only are you a bad libertarian, you are a bad American. Anyone who complains about fireworks on the 4th of July should be taken out and maimed.

        1. I’m fine with the fireworks. I was outside with the kid until 9:45 or so. But there’s a limit!

        2. Anyone who calls it the 4th of July instead of Independence Day should be taken out and maimed.

          1. I wouldn’t want it confused with some other independence day.

      4. Someone did.

    5. I think “mortar” is an appropriate term to use. It’s accurate and what I’ve always called them, even before the first time they got banned in NH.

      Otherwise, Degnan is a fucking moron. Who could have guessed that fireworks are potentially dangerous? OF course fireworks aren’t safe. They shoot out balls of burning metal.

      1. It’s appropriate, but don’t be one of those people who confuses the gun (the mortar) with the projectile (the shell, or comet, or mine bag contents).

        1. Don’t worry, I won’t.

        2. And “balls of burning metal” is misleading. They’re not metal chunks. They are chunks that in some cases contain metal powder or flakes.

          1. Sure, I was being dramatic. My point was that fireworks are obviously dangerous if improperly used and no one should be surprised that accidents causing significant injury can and occasionally do happen. It’s dishonest to act as if accidents this weekend are eye-opening new information that should change anyone’s opinion on legal fireworks.

  14. Why do I come here?

    1. Come for the nutshots, stay … curled up in pain.

    2. for the comradeship?

      *ha*

      1. There’s got to be someone to commiserate with. Sometimes it’s the only way to remain sane.

    3. To make sure you get an early reservation on the trains?

  15. McCarthy understands in principle that it is “illogical” to believe “that government can intercede and prevent this from happening,” but he somehow doesn’t understand that prohibitions aren’t just ineffective, but outright counterproductive

    Why? Is he “fucking retarded”?

  16. The heartland city, already notorious for its high crime rates, had a surprisingly bloody Independence Day weekend, and its mayor and top cop say it’s because gun laws aren’t broad enough

    In case anyone was wondering about the real reason for the crazy weekend…yeah, we had really good weather.

  17. Progs go apeshit when Navy SEAL compares gun control to Jim Crow

    Raso, a U.S. Navy SEAL veteran, said in a video uploaded to YouTube on Sunday that gun control laws were like Jim Crow laws because owning and carrying a firearm was a civil right.

    “Just because someone makes a law that says you can’t buy, own, or carry a weapon doesn’t make it lawful,” he remarked. “Jim Crow laws were also passed and enforced and those were equally unconstitutional.”

    “Too many Americans don’t think of the Second Amendment as a civil rights issue,” Raso continued. “And that’s dangerous, because all of those rights together define freedom. If you’re free to speak but not worship, you’re not free. If you’re free to vote, but not to speak, you aren’t not free either.

    “And if you’re free to do everything but defend yourself with a firearm, you’re not going to feel very free when you’re holding the phone waiting on the cops to save you from a home invader.”

    He concluded that owning a gun was a human right.

    The comments are doozy. Apparently “well-regulated Militia” means there is no right to own a gun and the very concept of inherent human rights is abhorrent to progressives, who know rights only come from government.

    1. Of course they are idiots.

      Now do you feel good?

    2. owning a gun was a human right.

      The short list of human rights has to include the right to defend yourself.

      Which is meaningless unless you have the right to effectively defend yourself.

      Which means, with a gun.

      The analogy here is that the right of free expression must include the right to the means of spreading your thoughts – via print, broadcast, etc.

      1. I’ve broken that down many times to then and their response is always that I must have a tiny penis and am compensating.

        You would think someone at Salon, Raw Story, Slate, etc would realize who stupid this makes their side look and stop baiting them.

        1. Speaking of someone at Salon… Someone at Salon is arguing in favor of nationalizing Amazon and Google. These people are fucking commies. The mask is completely off.

          1. I’d like to nationalize the government, seizing it and breaking it up for antitrust violations.

          2. It never occurs to them that Google, Amazon, and other tech companies have created far more value for the country and the world at large than the amount of money government spent on ARPANET and other research projects.

            If Google owes government a debt of gratitude I’d say they’e repaid that debt a thousand fold.

            To say otherwise is to say that we are all just serfs to government since the land we occupy was originally owned by government, who only allowed us to purchase and develop it.

          3. This is “you didn’t build that” taken to the conclusion only us teabilly, Somalia loving, conspiracy theorists talked about when he first said it.

        2. Does it count as unsolicited if you send a dick pic under such circumstances? I vote no.

        3. Remember, they are educated, caring, and enlightened, whereas you are a racist troglodyte with a tiny penis who can’t get an erection unless he caresses his guns – they know this because it is self-evident – and this is why it’s OK for them to start screaming insults at you for expressing your opinion.

        4. I’ve broken that down many times to then and their response is always that I must have a tiny penis and am compensating.

          Do you have a tiny penis? If not, next time you should whip it out.

          1. “Gun nut commits sex crime after sensible commonsense advocates disagree with him.”

    3. God, how long does it take these people to catch up on reading Supreme Court decisions? Heller was years ago.

      1. They don’t read decisions, because… don’t know why, I put to much faith in logic over feels.

        1. The Daily Show explains it all to them so they don’t have to read the actual decisions.

      2. What, that old thing?

    4. Of course, gun control was a central plank of Jim Crow dating all the way back to just after Reconstruction. Someone should point out that MLK was a CCW permit holder, and carried as part of his civil disobedience in places he couldn’t.

      1. Didn’t work out so well for MLK. If only he had called the cops to protect him.

      2. Maybe I need to reread that part of history, but as I thought I understood it, MLK applied for a CCW permit and was denied.

        1. Whatever it was, he generally carried a pistol with him.

  18. OT:

    National Treasure Iowahawk on a photo of Elizabeth Warren sitting on a parked motorcycle:

    “Still no proof that anybody in Elizabeth Warren’s family has ever ridden an Indian.”

    1. Holy fuck, that’s awesome!

  19. OT: Robert Samuelson is now for the Ex-Im Bank because the “wrong” people are against it.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..te-welfare

    1. I was against the Export-Import Bank before I was for it, and I may someday be against it again. But right now I’m for it, because the congressional fuss over the renewal of its charter is mostly political grandstanding.

      Well, who can argue with that reasoning?

    2. Whenever I think maybe I should throw a few bucks at CATO, they talk me out of it.

      1. Cato isn’t so far gone that they’re pro cronyism; the article is a highly critical piece on our favorite WaPo journalist goon.

  20. OT: When even the NYT notices you know things are about to go to hell

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014……html?_r=1

    “Welcome to the Everything Boom ? and, quite possibly, the Everything Bubble. Around the world, nearly every asset class is expensive by historical standards. Stocks and bonds; emerging markets and advanced economies; urban office towers and Iowa farmland; you name it, and it is trading at prices that are high by historical standards relative to fundamentals. The inverse of that is relatively low returns for investors.”

    1. In 2016, Krugman will spend all his time opining that we could’ve avoided the latest crash if only the feds had shelled out a slightly larger stimulus in 2009.

      If only we had more inflation and greater regulation of private commerce, then we’d really be well off.

      1. And THAT’S what pisses me off. Not that he’s wrong, but knowing, deep in my heart, that he will explain away any future crisis. It’s also what pisses me off about the global warming alarmists.

        “What it feels like to be a libertarian”

        http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj…..lsLike.htm

        1. Somehow I’d never seen that before; great editorial.

          Hasnas’s sentiments are also a good reason why anyone who takes libertarianism seriously should probably also take on a meditative discipline or be perpetually intoxicated (though it’s not an either/or).

    2. Around the world, nearly every asset class is expensive by historical standards.

      Which is another way of saying that currencies have been debased to historical levels.

      I’m curious: Does the word “inflation” make an appearance in the article?

      Because talking about historically high asset prices, especially across the board, without talking about currency value and inflation is, well, like talking about fish without ever mentioning that they are attracted to water.

      1. Can’t answer your question – even thought the dead tree version is currently in my lap — because I haven’t read the article. I wouldn’t be surprised if the word “inflation” is never mentioned. However, I was shocked to read this: ” “at the same time, the world’s major central banks have been on a six-year campaign of holding down interest rates and creating more money from thin air to try to stimulate stronger growth after the financial crisis.”

        Perhaps Krugman will be given a chance for rebuttal?

    3. A collective race to the bottom

    4. Could just be that the NYT is really fucking stupid and has no idea how to find value. I’m acquiring assets that are not selling anywhere near historic highs, and getting strong returns through income, not asset appreciation. If their value goes up in the future, that’s great, but it isn’t the basis of my investment. And, of course, when I do spot an undervalued asset, I don’t go telling a slapdick reporter about it.

      1. Well!?!??!? Cough up some of them assets, brah. I’ve got money to invest and I have no idea where to put it these days. It’s like I see the train wreck coming, but I’m parked on the tracks and can’t get the car into gear.

  21. “Mayor Rahm Emanuel called for more robust restrictions at a press conference yesterday, saying that current “gun laws are the weak link.”

    Because the “Not Shooting People“-laws have no effect, *surely* making Gun Ownership more onerous will deter criminals.

  22. “Possession of a loaded firearm,” the incredulous McCarthy said, “is not even considered a violent felony in the state of Illinois for sentencing purposes.”

    It’s time to start calling these people what they really are: Communist traitors to the country.

    1. I object. They’re fascists, not communists, as fascism provides far greater pelf potential.

  23. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called for more robust restrictions at a press conference yesterday

    He’s right. He should be broadly restricted from, well, everything.

  24. OT: Shrieks fav Senator sez – It werunt the Teabaggerz, it wuz the Cubanz!!!!!!!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

  25. Oh, and Zenon, back to the ol’ “Hey, Illinoisans, remember you live in a crap strewn quasi-despotism!’ yet again?!! Yes, yes, I know “it is your job” šŸ™

    1. Sorry :\

  26. and its mayor and top cop say it’s because gun laws aren’t broad enough

    The precise opposite is true. The gun violence is coming from a very small segment of the overall population. However, the vast majority of offenders in that very small segment all share certain characteristics that it is impolitic to mention. Thus the politicians are compelled to misdirect and call for “broad” measures.

    1. The gun violence is coming from a very small segment of the overall population.

      “I’m a gun owner and I vote. And vote and vote and vote and vote and vote and vote and vote. Hell, no I don’t have ID!”

    2. Papaya nailed it. The problem is black youth on the South Side shooting each other. It’s not like white youth in Oak Park are blasting at each other. But yeah, Rahm and Cap’n Garry can’t address one specific demographic. So they feign outrage at GUNZZZ!!!!

      1. There really is no end to the depth of their racism.

      2. Hey show some respect. Cap’n Garry is a four star GENERAL- he outranks Eisenhower when he was appointed Supreme
        Commander in Europe.

    3. Yeah, that seems to be the thing no one wants to mention. And you don’t have to make it about race (though someone will always accuse you of racism anyway, I’m sure). The greatest part of “gun violence” is criminal gang members killing each other.

      1. Juan Williams was on The Five yesterday calling out the racial angle on this and asking where Jesse Jackson was, where the black churches are, etc. My BF thinks a big part of the problem is that the communities are so unstable there are largely not the kind of black churches that would even have the authority to enforce this kind of social control. “Who goes to radical black churches in Chicago? Obama,” as he said. Upper-middle-class black people. The neighborhoods where this stuff is happening, it’s storefront churches shutting down and opening up every five minutes.

        Anyway, point being basically that some people do talk about it, and I don’t think it’s actually avoided that much here in Chicago…except by Rahm and McCarthy, maybe.

  27. One would think that the number one priority of local government is to deal with crime. But apparently they have more important things to do. They are failing their raison d’etre, and passing the buck.

  28. Dunno where he gets the notion that carrying a loaded firearm without a permit is not a felony in Illinois.

    720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon
    This is a Class 4 Felony in Illinois

    AgUUW is defined(I’m paraphrasing) as carrying a firearm in a public place, or in a vehicle under any of the following conditions

    a. Loaded
    b. Unloaded and uncased if ammo is accessible
    c. don’t have a FOID card
    d. while in possession of ‘illegal drugs’

    There are a few more oddball conditions that would put you in violation, but bottom line is, loaded without a permit = felony.

  29. Not to defend Officer Fuckstick, but he did say it’s not considered a VIOLENT felony for sentencing purposes.

  30. Chicago residents blame Weak Mayor, and Brainless Top Cop, for gun violence.

    FTFY!

  31. I’m shocked as shit that the Tribune even reported a person defending themselves. I can report that the evening news here in Chicago didn’t report on that. Why ruin their narrative?

  32. “…one unnamed man with a concealed carry weapon defended himself and three other people against gunmen…”

    His permit will be cancelled due to his ‘excessive use of force’.
    In Chicago, only the cops, and thugs (am I repeating myself), are allowed to shoot people.

  33. Weak laws?

    Waitaminnit – I thought that Chi-town had the most draconian anti-human-rights laws on the books (perhaps second to the Domain of Criminals?)?

    Weak laws?

    I almost though about asking for the supplier of what these people are smoking, because I’m not finding anything near that potent. . . but then I realized. . . it’d probably make me into the same sort of moron as they are.

    I’ll stick to what I’ve got already. . .

  34. Probably 100 million guns out there owned by bad guys. I don’t own a gun, don’t want one, but I wish anti gun types would start with the position we’re in. Not start with where they would like to be.

    Take the 82 shootings and see how many took place between law abiding gun owners, and how many took place in the drug ghetto. Almost every one would be in the drug ghetto, and good luck getting rid of those guns.

  35. “Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, whose officers were responsible for shooting five people and killing a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old, stated at a separate press conference that “it all comes down to these guns: there’s too many guns coming in and too little punishment going out.”
    I don’t know, seems like those teenagers got enough punishment. Maybe you mean too little punishment going to actual guilty people.

  36. All anyone has to do is ask why we aren’t seeing shootings and killings in the surrounding suburbs of Chicago? DuPage County Illinois, population 1 million, had 5 gun homicides in 2013 based on data published by the Coroner’s Office. There were also 4 stabbing homicides so guns aren’t the problem and Chicago police officials and politicians are lying to the public which is par for the course in Chicago.

  37. This couldn’t be the result of Rahm’s 2011 demand that McCarthy cut 190 million dollars from his police budget could it? Or that they consolidated and closed several detective bureaus, moved cops around in the city to unfamiliar turf (negating all their contacts and informant sources) and laid off many civilian staff. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Chicago’s homicide closure rate has dropped to just 18% in the worst parts of the city and down to 29% overall – the lowest in 20 years.

    Nah… it can’t be stupid moves by the city administration and police.
    It must be the guns that are at fault.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.