Thoughts and Prayers - Again...

[NobleHunter]

It also depends on how one defines militia. For instance if a group of concerned citizens (i.e. a militia) takes up arms to fight off a landed invasion in their state from overseas, I guess in a manner of speaking you don't want to make it illegal to do that. Practically speaking you can't make it illegal because in the very circumstance where such a defense is needed I imagine it already means the military is at its limit in terms of how much it's doing already. But if by militia one means "private military force" in the sense of taking positive action against enemies of the U.S., then I'm pretty sure it would be pretty easy to ban a militia group from, for example, going to war with a foreign country on their soil 'in defense of America'. It has become commonly accepted political doctrine at this point that 'defense of America' absolutely includes invading foreign countries, but a militia would certainly not enjoy the privilege of being able to defend America in this fashion on their own accord.

The Constitution is pretty clear what kind of militias it's talking about. It would be egregious even by the current court's standards to read it to mean a group operating independently of a state.

[Fenring]

The Constitution is pretty clear what kind of militias it's talking about. It would be egregious even by the current court's standards to read it to mean a group operating independently of a state.

But that's sort of what I mean. Are the current militia groups operated by the states?

[NobleHunter]

Yes and no. I think the state militias got folded into the National Guard and so aren't as independent at they used to be. I don't know if the states can still martial a completely separate body of troops, though they would be ill-prepared to do so.

[Fenring]

Yes and no. I think the state militias got folded into the National Guard and so aren't as independent at they used to be. I don't know if the states can still martial a completely separate body of troops, though they would be ill-prepared to do so.

So I took a militia group at random from a Wiki list of them, one which has its own entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Militia

This kind of group is hooked up with the National Guard??

[NobleHunter]

No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

[Fenring]

No, you'll note they aren't run by the State of Michigan.

While there are groups that call themselves a militia, they're just aping the form (or more charitably applying a different definition) in order to sound legitimate.

Do you have a link or reference to a 'real militia' in the sense you mean it?

[cherrypoptart]

"Are you a Christian?  If so how do you square those ideas with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness and redemption?"

What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

And do we do that now?

I would say that the recidivism rate proves that we don't. You can't have recidivism without new innocent victims and allowing it to happen is a failure of our society. I'm pretty sure Jesus would be all in favor of protecting children.

That should include not just the ones who are specifically targeted but also the ones who get caught in gang war crossfires.

I don't see how keeping dangerous criminals in prison is anti-Christian.

The corporal punishment part? Yeah, I suppose Jesus wouldn't be in favor of that so much. If you go far enough though, it's possible he wouldn't be in favor of any punishment at all. Does turn the other cheek mean that if one of your children is raped, you let the guy rape your other children too? If that's what it means then I'm afraid I'd have to pass.

[LetterRip]

What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

And do we do that now?

Way better than any point in history, probably 1000 times better than in Christ's time.  Any child not of wealthy parents had a high chance of being murdered, raped, starved, beaten, etc.  It was quite common practice to leave unwanted infants out to die of exposure.  Child sacrifice was done in Carthage.  It used to be common to do ritual sacrifice of children and slaves for laying of foundation stones and to 'appease the Gods' for weather.

Also drastically better than even fairly recent history - 60's, 70's, 80's - child abuse and neglect is taken very seriously these, days, but it was largely ignored for most of US history. We could do better, but we are far and away better than at any point in history, we are relatively close to perfection relative to say the norms during the time of Christ.

[Fenring]

"Are you a Christian?  If so how do you square those ideas with the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness and redemption?"

What ideas? Like the idea that we should protect innocent children from the people who prey on them?

The NT does not make mention afaik of the importance of protecting the innocent from criminals. If that's a virtue it's not one mentioned by Jesus.

However to be fair the teachings in the NT are oriented toward small communities rather than over-arching nations governing large groupings of peoples. The NT doesn't include the equivalent of the Mosaic laws, dictating how to actually run a society.

[TheDrake]

Choosing what to do should be evidence based of course.  You wouldn't let a serial killer out because he repented. But we also should question whether we want a life sentence for,  well everything. Any offense can recur.  We could lock up all the drunk drivers for life also, because they kill kids. Pretty soon you'll wall off major cities like New York.  The new Australia banishment for everyone committing a potentially deadly act.  And since some domestic abusers often escalate to deadly violence, one punch should put them away. Yes, we should have follow up. We should give more support to prevent recidivism. We should spend more money on more and better parole officers. A solution of maximum harm prevention will break down. You have to accept some repeat offense in order to allow others the opportunity to contribute to society. Even just based on economics.

[cherrypoptart]

While I agree that not every criminal should be given a life without parole sentence, assuming that if more violent criminals were given life without parole, that we would have to fill the prisons to bursting with such criminals kind of misses the point. If the punishments were harsher then presumably there would be fewer people committing those crimes. For drunk drivers instead of life in prison perhaps a permanent loss of driving privileges would be more reasonable, and better for the environment too. It could be after the first offense, but not necessarily. Maybe after the second or third. Same with longer prison sentences and life sentences, just like the three strikes and you're out laws that reduced crime. And I understand the internet says the laws were ineffective but I'm not buying it because it makes no sense. If you've got someone that is repeatedly committing violent crimes then for at least the period of time that they stay in prison the community is safe from them. If they are released and commit more crime after that then it pretty much proves that it was better they were kept in prison and that for a while there at least, innocent people were safe from them.

Y'all talk about all these other ways to reduce crime and sure go for all of that. It's not either or but all of the above. But some people just can't be saved so it's more important to try to save victims from them instead of giving the already guilty the benefit of the doubt anymore when we know in the aggregate innocent people are going to be the ones who get punished.

None of that really applies to the latest school shooting though. However, it might have applied to the Parkland shooting where apparently that guy was given the light handed treatment that is being recommended and when it didn't work a bunch of innocent kids paid the ultimate price. What about their day in court? Their justice? The people against being tough on crime gave innocent kids a death sentence.

[TheDrake]

That's the problem with using intuition rather than actual data. It makes sense to us that the harsher a penalty is, the more people will be deterred, but the data won't support it. That's not "the internet" it is virtually every academic study my criminology,  psychology, and sociology. Just allowing doctors to talk to parents about the risk of guns in the home would be a nice start, and costs nothing.

[cherrypoptart]

There's no possible way to know about deterrence.

All we know for sure is that while they are in prison they can't commit crimes.

I can see the point though in medium prison sentences acting to harden criminals instead of reforming them. Maybe you do the scared straight thing, or catch a young criminal and give him another chance instead of throwing him into hell and turning him into a demon.

But there are some violent criminals that just never need to be set loose again. The safest thing for innocent people is to keep what Hillary Clinton called the "super predators" locked up. Just so it's not racist, I'd count pedophiles amongst them and a lot of those guys are white. I mean we're worried about the children, right? And yet you can find all the pedophiles on the publicly available online maps who were caught, convicted, and then released easily enough, distributed throughout the country through all of our neighborhoods. Are we only worried about the kids when they get shot but not so much when they get raped? Frankly, just gonna be honest here, our society is kind of pathetic. We say that we care but our actions tell the truth about how little.

Anyways, here's Hillary laying it out. Isn't she the person the Democrats wanted to be our President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

[msquared]

Prisoners can't commit crimes?  Are you sure about that?  Oh, you mean against regular people.  It is just fine if they do things to other inmates and guards.  I guess solitary 24/7 is the only answer.

And I see you are not able to answer a direct question.

Are you one of those evangelicals who prefer Revelations and the Old Testament to the teachings of Jesus, since his teaching are harder to follow? I know how much easier an Eye for an Eye is than Love your neighbor.

[Fenring]

I don't see what any of this has to do with the case of a teenager's first and last hurrah with crime being the shooting up of a school. Unless we're talking about repeat offenders of school shootings then I'm not sure what the point is...

[cherrypoptart]

The point is being concerned about people dying because of gun violence in general.

It's true though that there's nothing proposed so far that would stop someone with no criminal record from legally purchasing guns, or murdering his mother first and stealing her gun as happened in Sandy Hook, and then attacking children in a school.

The only proposal might be a total gun ban and then the point is to convince enough of the public that that's in their best interest the crime rate would have to come down a heckuva lot first, whether that's by being tough on crime or by being lenient on crime it's the results that matter.

As for religion, yeah okay I'm dodging the question as I honestly I haven't exactly worked it all out myself yet. I'll admit that I don't go to church so I don't have anyone I rely on to pin it all down for me. I lean to a lot of what Christianity preaches to have merit to it but one of the main no-no's is that you aren't supposed to kill yourself or even hurt yourself. I'd say that suicide by cop is not a valid work-around and by extension being so lenient with violent criminals that suicide and self-harm by purposefully allowed violent crime becomes more and more likely is also not acceptable, nor is allowing innocent people to be hurt and killed. Huge rationalization there perhaps but as I noted I'm working through it.

As for prison, I'm all for prison reform to make it less expensive and safer.

[Fenring]

The point is being concerned about people dying because of gun violence in general.

It's true though that there's nothing proposed so far that would stop someone with no criminal record from legally purchasing guns, or murdering his mother first and stealing her gun as happened in Sandy Hook, and then attacking children in a school.

The only proposal might be a total gun ban and then the point is to convince enough of the public that that's in their best interest the crime rate would have to come down a heckuva lot first, whether that's by being tough on crime or by being lenient on crime it's the results that matter.

As for religion, yeah okay I'm dodging the question as I honestly I haven't exactly worked it all out myself yet. I'll admit that I don't go to church so I don't have anyone I rely on to pin it all down for me. I lean to a lot of what Christianity preaches to have merit to it but one of the main no-no's is that you aren't supposed to kill yourself or even hurt yourself.

To be honest I don't think anyone has worked it out yet. Individuals sometimes have hard opinions, but large-scale organizations, even with centuries or more behind them, seem to still be debating the issue, e.g. just war theory, when killing or taking up arms is ok, preventative violence, etc. These are really hard things. I think the main issue brought up just now which does seem a bit contradictory to the Christian spirit is extreme punishment purely as a preventative measure, and also the concept of using one person's suffering as a means of controlling other people. Using a person as a means to an end would be against the spirit of several religions.

[rightleft22]

27th school shooting this year...

When can we stop pretending?  Same stories, same augments spun out till we get to forget till the next one. 
Maybe the media should just stop covering such stories and let us pretend in peace.

[TheDrake]

There's no possible way to know about deterrence.

All we know for sure is that while they are in prison they can't commit crimes.

I can see the point though in medium prison sentences acting to harden criminals instead of reforming them. Maybe you do the scared straight thing, or catch a young criminal and give him another chance instead of throwing him into hell and turning him into a demon.

But there are some violent criminals that just never need to be set loose again. The safest thing for innocent people is to keep what Hillary Clinton called the "super predators" locked up. Just so it's not racist, I'd count pedophiles amongst them and a lot of those guys are white. I mean we're worried about the children, right? And yet you can find all the pedophiles on the publicly available online maps who were caught, convicted, and then released easily enough, distributed throughout the country through all of our neighborhoods. Are we only worried about the kids when they get shot but not so much when they get raped? Frankly, just gonna be honest here, our society is kind of pathetic. We say that we care but our actions tell the truth about how little.

Anyways, here's Hillary laying it out. Isn't she the person the Democrats wanted to be our President?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

You know that some of the people in that database were only a couple years older than their statutory victim right? Some of them got a sex crime designation for urinating in public in front of some kids. Not everyone in that database are hardcore predators. Which, is its own problem. Now ask yourself, how many of them have to reoffend for it to be a bad idea to let them out? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? 1 in 1000? Even one single incident?

Is there an acceptable level of school shootings? Yes, probably. If we had one per decade, I might say that it isn't worth upending society to deal with it. Everything is relative and everything is a tradeoff. I think that people having gobs of guns available abets regular crime and crazy shooters. I'm willing to bet that there are other ways to defeat a fascist government that doesn't involve shooting soldiers. I'm willing to let citizens living in remote areas to have shotguns and pistols to defend their ranch that is 57 miles from the nearest precinct.

Absolutism is always stupid.

[Lloyd Perna]

We didn't always have this problem with school shootings. Semi automatic weapons like the AR 15 have been available to civilians for over 100 years.  The weapons haven't changed that much.

[msquared]

Really, AR-15 has been around for 100 years?  They had them back in the 1920's?  Can you provide a source of that?

[Lloyd Perna]

Really, AR-15 has been around for 100 years?  They had them back in the 1920's?  Can you provide a source of that?

You better re-read my post.  Because I didnt say the AR 15 had been around 100 years.

[TheDrake]

So which semiautomatic rifle LIKE the AR-15 was available in 1922?

[msquared]

Lloyd

You are correct. I misread what you wrote. You said weapons like the AR-15 were available. 

[TheDrake]

I'll save you from embarrassing yourself with your poor knowledge of the history of firearms.

Semi-automatic rifles did not see widespread military adoption until just prior to World War II, the M1 Garand being a notable example

[Lloyd Perna]

Let me introduce you to the Remington Model 8.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8

[rightleft22]

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault-weapons ban, which banned the AR-15 and other similar semiautomatic rifles.
After its ban, mass shootings were down in the decade that followed, in comparison to the decade before (1984-94) and the one after (2004-14)

Once the assault-weapons ban expired 10 years later in 2004, gun manufacturers quickly began production and sales rose.

AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons are civilian versions of military weapons that gun control advocates say aren't very different.
The AR-15, like its military version, is designed to kill people quickly and in large numbers, hence the term assault-style rifle.
The gun industry, gun owners and their supporters say AR-15s are used for hunting, target practice and shooting competitions.

The AR-15 was called "America's Rifle" in a January 2016

The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived

There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.

The early 1980s saw only a few multi-victim school shootings this changes in the 1990
1992-1993 (44 Homicides and 55 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1993-1994 (42 Homicides and 51 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1994-1995 (17 Homicides and 20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1995-1996 (29 Homicides and 35 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1996-1997 (23 Homicides and 25 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1997-1998 (35 Homicides and 40 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
1998-1999 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)
1999-2000 (25 Homicides from school shootings in the U.S.)

And then continues into 2000
2000-2001 (19 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2001-2002 (4 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2002-2003 (14 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2003-2004 (29 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2004-2005 (20 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2005-2006 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2006-2007 (38 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2007-2008 (3 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2008-2009 (10 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)
2009-2010 (5 Deaths resulting from school shootings in the U.S.)

[Lloyd Perna]

What's the source of your data? 
What is the difference between a Homicide and a death related to a school shooting?
How many of the homicides were attributed to an "Assault Weapon"?
Why did you stop at 2010?

[Wayward Son]

Saying that military-style weapons are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle is a bogus claim, since, if it were true, gun owners would have no leg to stand on to object to banning them.

Because if military-style rifles were banned, as they were during the assault weapons ban, then anyone could buy any other semi-automatic weapon they wanted.  Any equivalent rifle would be available.  Which means there was no practical inconvenience to any gun owner.

Now, if there is a difference between military-style rifles and others, perhaps that is reason that most mass shooters use such weapons.  Which would indicate there is actually a good reason to ban such rifles, for those differences.

Either way, the argument doesn't work.

[TheDrake]

Let me introduce you to the Remington Model 8.

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/?page_id=8

Don't know what was wrong with the Remington 8, but they only managed to manufacture 69,000 over 30 years. So I doubt they were particularly available or prevalent,  and the military decided Bolt action was better for mass killing, by definition.

[Wayward Son]

Anyone interested in actual, common-sense, workable gun laws, here is a nice list courtesy of the NRA.  Just don't expect to hear it from NRA leadership. 

On my range, on any range, military, law enforcement, or civilian, the first rule of gun safety is this:
Always assume the gun is loaded, unless you personally have verified that it is unloaded. ...

Make it a law.

Every gun user is personally responsible for knowing the condition of their weapon. No exceptions. ...

Always point the gun in a safe direction.

Every year hundreds of people are killed or injured by guns because the operator failed to keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction. ...

Know how to use the gun safely.
Before handling a gun, learn how it operates. Know its basic parts, how to safely open and close the action and remove any ammunition from the gun or magazine. Remember, a gun's mechanical safety device is never foolproof. Nothing can ever replace safe gun handling.

Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
Just like other tools, guns need regular maintenance to remain operable. Regular cleaning and proper storage are a part of the gun's general upkeep. If there is any question concerning a gun's ability to function, a knowledgeable gunsmith should look at it.

Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
Only BBs, pellets, cartridges or shells designed for a particular gun can be fired safely in that gun. Most guns have the ammunition type stamped on the barrel. Ammunition can be identified by information printed on the box and sometimes stamped on the cartridge. Do not shoot the gun unless you know you have the proper ammunition.

Cleaning
Regular cleaning is important in order for your gun to operate correctly and safely. Before cleaning your gun, make absolutely sure that it is unloaded. The gun's action should be open during the cleaning process. Also, be sure that no ammunition is present in the cleaning area. ...

There are no accidents with guns.

Always point the gun in a safe direction, that’s rule #1 of the NRA’s own guidelines.

Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, that’s NRA rule #2.

Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use, that’s NRA rule #3.

You’re responsible for your weapon at all times. You’re responsible for proper and secure carry. You’re responsible for keeping the weapon in proper operating order. You’re responsible for engaging the safety if the weapon is so equipped or for the use of other techniques if it is not. A properly maintained and carried weapon does not discharge when dropped, if it does, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.

Make it the law.

Misdemeanor for failure to point your weapon in a safe direction, for unintentional discharge, for failure to properly maintain and use safety systems if only property damage is involved. Felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself. Felony manslaughter if somebody dies.

Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Make it the law.

Just as you’re responsible for keeping your weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times when not intending to shoot, any gun user should be lawfully accountable for correct target identification when shooting whether it’s on a target range or in the grocery store in defense of an active shooter situation. Period. No excuses. No exceptions.

Misdemeanor for failure to discharge your weapon in a safe direction if only property damage is involved, felony negligence if somebody is injured including yourself, manslaughter if somebody dies.

There are no accidents with guns. ...

Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.

We don’t allow people to operate a car, a boat, an airplane when intoxicated. We don’t let doctors to operate when drunk. We don’t allow cops or military personnel to drink on duty.

But every year thousands of Americans are killed or injured by drunks with guns and even the NRA knows just how insane that is and they put it in writing.

Make it the law. ...

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

Every year hundreds of people are killed by guns in the hands of people not authorized to have them.

You own a gun, it’s your responsibility. Period. No excuses.  If Adam Lanza’s idiot mother had properly secured her weapons, she and the innocents of Sandy Hook would still be alive. Hundreds of people are killed or injured every single year in the United States by unsecured weapons. Weapons are stolen and fall into the wrong hands, because they are not properly stored.

The NRA itself, by its own rules for safe gun handling, dictates that weapons must be stored so that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons. Note that the NRA doesn’t dictate the method, only the requirement.

Make it the law. ...

And finally, though it’s not one of the NRA’s rules, I’d add

Never provide a gun to someone not authorized to have it.
If you purchase or otherwise obtain a firearm for another who you know is not legally able to own/operate a gun, you are responsible for that person’s resulting actions with that weapon.

If the people who buy weapons for those not authorized to have them were held to account for their actions, Charleston and Columbine wouldn’t have happened – or at least the likelihood would be significantly reduced.

There are no accidents when it comes to guns.

Make that, that right there, the law. There are no accidents when it comes to guns. Period. No excuses.

Make responsible gun ownership and usage federal law, uniform across the United States.

Conviction on misdemeanor gun safety charges? You lose the privilege for a specified period. You engage in remedial action? You prove you’ve learned your lesson? You prove you’ll be a responsible gun owner in the future? You get your guns back. Happens again, you lose the privilege forever. We don’t give drunk drivers more than two strikes either.

Conviction on felony gun handling charges? You lose the privilege. Period. Your name goes in the federal database and you never own or operate a gun again, this includes cops and military.

You’re caught with a gun after losing the privilege? You automatically go to prison, no plea deals, no excuses. ...

Over time, just like with the drunk driving laws, enforcing the NRA’s own rules, the same basic common sense rules that are used in the military, in law enforcement, on civilian gun ranges, and were taught to most of us by our fathers, will change our culture from one of gun fetishists to one of responsible gun owners. And that will reduce gun violence, just as the same approach has significantly reduced drinking and driving.

Make gun safety the law, punishable law, not just some nice suggestion that you can do or not do however you feel at the time.

Gun advocates keep complaining how gun laws take away guns from responsible owners.  Well, here's some laws that would make sure responsible owners get to keep their guns, by making sure only responsible people can legally own them.

Think we can get the Republican Party to advocate for such laws?

[Lloyd Perna]

I'm all for it.  How would that stop school shootings?
Also, can we enforce the gun laws we already have please?

[msquared]

Didn't we on the Texas shooting?  What law was not enforced that would have stopped that shooting?

[Wayward Son]

I'm all for it.  How would that stop school shootings?

Of course it wouldn't stop all school shootings, or even many other types of shootings.

But, like drunk driving laws, it would stop some.  Even many.

And after a while, people's attitudes would change (like with drunk driving), so that irresponsible behavior would not be considered "normal."  And fewer people would do it.  Which means fewer idiots would have a chance to get their hands on guns.

Also, can we enforce the gun laws we already have please?

So you're in favor of a crack-down on guns?  You fully support a no-tolerance enforcement of existing gun laws by all law enforcement, and penalties for any law enforcement agency who doesn't crack down on those that use guns unlawfully and illegally?

Good.  Write you congressman and senator and demand that they demand that happens.  Because there are a lot of people who are writing them right now telling them that they don't want to see any change to existing gun laws, except for the repeal of some of them.  Like making concealed carry legal for everyone, including irresponsible people.  Like those who would like to carry while drunk or high.  Like those who want to be able to legally carry it until they get to the person want to murder, like an ex-spouse.

Let's see every firearm law strictly enforced.  Not enforced now and then for certain people, but for everyone.  Then we can see how well it works, and if more does or does not need to be done.

Because sure as anything, it ain't working now.

[Wayward Son]

Oh, while you're at it, demand that the U.S. government start collecting data on gun deaths and shooting, and doing proper analysis of that.  Because right now, Republicans have been vetoing any legislation putting money into actually collecting such data, in case it might show that certain laws do or do not work in preventing gun violence.  That is something we should have been doing for years.  So we have actual, reliable data to base our responses on, instead of guesses and ideological biases.  You need to demand that from your representatives.  Because my representatives in California are not against such studies, and so it does not do much good for me to demand it.

[TheDrake]

I've got a good one to enforce. In Texas, it is illegal to bring a firearm into a bar. It carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. How many gun-toting yahoos would that allow us to lock up? And when we confiscate their gun for that purpose, their kids won't have guns to take to school. Because that's the number one reason kids get access to a firearm. Over 2/3 of school shooters are under the age of 18 - although mass shooters are usually a couple of years older, none of them can legally buy a gun. How do they get them? Usually relatives. That's another Texas law, the safe storage law, that says you are supposed to actively prevent kids from getting access to guns if they are under 17. But gun toting yahoos love giving their kids access to guns, because they might have to defend the homestead from masked assailants. So they don't lock them up, and they are often loaded because hey, that's vital time that would be lost when leaping into action! Never mind that their own kid is more likely to shoot themselves or a playmate.

[Lloyd Perna]

No argument here.  Prosecute them.

While we're at it can we make Chicago prosecute things like illegal possession of a firearm and illegal firearm sales? 

[yossarian22c]

No argument here.  Prosecute them.

While we're at it can we make Chicago prosecute things like illegal possession of a firearm and illegal firearm sales?

They do. They would probably also like to prosecute the straw purchases who buy 200 cheap handguns in Georgia and just happen to resell them to people who sell them to gangs in Chicago. Maybe we should let the ATF track that type of information to see where all the illegal guns are coming from. But most efforts to track that type of behavior has been blocked by the republicans in congress.

[Lloyd Perna]

This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

[NobleHunter]

The article isn't clear if it's an active choice not to prosecute or if Chicago police/prosecutors have problems with getting the charges through court.  If most of the charges stemmed from unconstitutional searches, is it a bad thing if they're dismissed?

[yossarian22c]

This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

A judge dismissing a case isn't the same as choosing not to prosecute. It could be sloppy police work, lack of evidence, the Heller decision, or lack of resources to prosecute the crimes. If you have to choose between prosecuting a homicide or rape and a gun possession crime, guess which one gets the resources. The fact that the cases got to court for prosecution to be dismissed seems to imply that the police and DAs office were trying to do something. They may have lacked the evidence or resources to get a conviction but that mean that they were always looking the other way dealing with illegal gun possession.

From your own link.

According to the state’s attorney’s office, just 12 percent–or 625 out of 5,260–of gun possession cases have been thrown out during the past two years. But the figure only includes cases in which gun possession was the lead charge and excludes some cases involving multiple charges.

Fabio Valentini, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau, said an “overwhelming” number of the dismissed cases were based on a judge’s decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge. “We’d have nothing to pursue the case on,” Valentini said.

So if anything the police and prosecutors of Chicago are pursing and charging gun crimes too aggressively.

[TheDrake]

This article is a bit dated but I think it clearly shows that Chicago is frequently choosing not to prosecute these types of crimes.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/thousands-felony-gun-cases-are-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.

A judge dismissing a case isn't the same as choosing not to prosecute. It could be sloppy police work, lack of evidence, the Heller decision, or lack of resources to prosecute the crimes. If you have to choose between prosecuting a homicide or rape and a gun possession crime, guess which one gets the resources. The fact that the cases got to court for prosecution to be dismissed seems to imply that the police and DAs office were trying to do something. They may have lacked the evidence or resources to get a conviction but that mean that they were always looking the other way dealing with illegal gun possession.

From your own link.

According to the state’s attorney’s office, just 12 percent–or 625 out of 5,260–of gun possession cases have been thrown out during the past two years. But the figure only includes cases in which gun possession was the lead charge and excludes some cases involving multiple charges.

Fabio Valentini, the chief of the state’s attorney’s office’s criminal prosecutions bureau, said an “overwhelming” number of the dismissed cases were based on a judge’s decision to suppress evidence because a gun was intercepted in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment. Under that scenario, the prosecutor’s office would have no choice but to throw out the charge. “We’d have nothing to pursue the case on,” Valentini said.

So if anything the police and prosecutors of Chicago are pursing and charging gun crimes too aggressively.

Don't quote the actual article, that's cheating Democrat stuff. Clearly Lloyd only intended us to read the headline and draw the obvious conclusion that Chicago doesn't care about illegal possession and sale.

[Lloyd Perna]

Or it could be a Judge with other motivations.

[NobleHunter]

I don't think that's Chicago's fault, though. Except insofar that they can't make a case to get past a motivated judge.

[Lloyd Perna]

Who appointed the Judges?  I agree it might not be completely the Chicago DA's issue. Though if they aren't motivated to make the cases stick, it becomes easy for a Judge to dismiss.

[cherrypoptart]

If you don't like that then how about this one:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/10/4/22709632/mutual-combatant-lori-lightfoot-kim-foxx-austin-jack-boys-shootout-four-corner-hustlers

"Mayor Lori Lightfoot and a group of City Council members urged Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx Monday to reconsider prosecuting five suspects in a deadly gang-related shootout last week in Austin after they were released when prosecutors rejected charges against them.

Chicago police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery after they allegedly engaged in a Friday morning gunfight between two factions of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, the Chicago Sun-Times first reported.

The state’s attorney’s office, however, declined to charge any of them, calling the evidence insufficient. A police report further noted that prosecutors told investigators charges were rejected because the shootout involved “mutual combatants.”

------------------------------------------------------------

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.

[yossarian22c]

...

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.

One case? Seriously. Optics on that one look bad. But it doesn't mean that it is a systematic failure to pursue gun laws in the city.

[TheDrake]

If you don't like that then how about this one:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/10/4/22709632/mutual-combatant-lori-lightfoot-kim-foxx-austin-jack-boys-shootout-four-corner-hustlers

"Mayor Lori Lightfoot and a group of City Council members urged Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx Monday to reconsider prosecuting five suspects in a deadly gang-related shootout last week in Austin after they were released when prosecutors rejected charges against them.

Chicago police sought to charge all five suspects with murder and aggravated battery after they allegedly engaged in a Friday morning gunfight between two factions of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, the Chicago Sun-Times first reported.

The state’s attorney’s office, however, declined to charge any of them, calling the evidence insufficient. A police report further noted that prosecutors told investigators charges were rejected because the shootout involved “mutual combatants.”

------------------------------------------------------------

So if these were gang members one would expect many of them to have felony records and not be able to legally possess a gun let alone engage in "mutual combat" on the street.

So they called the evidence insufficient. Are you asserting that there was sufficient evidence, or that the prosecutor should file charges anyway and get them dismissed by a judge instead? The article says the police agreed that there wasn't enough evidence. Police aren't usually in the habit of excusing prosecutors for leaving gang members on the street. There is indication that dismissals overall are up from the previous prosecutor, something like 9% dismissed instead of 5% under her predecessor. Not clear all that is behind that, I can think of a lot of reasons including being less willing to prosecute on weak evidence - or even cops being pressured to refer more cases for charges with weaker evidence. Possibly her predecessor liked to prosecute potentially innocent people and get plea bargains to look tougher on crime.

[cherrypoptart]

Evidence of what?

There was plenty of evidence that these people were shooting at each other in the street.

The thing the DA was saying is that there wasn't enough evidence that shooting at each other in the street was against the law as long as they all agreed with each other that it was okay which is why she used the term mutual combat. Shouldn't they also have to get the consent of everyone else around there who might get shot by a stray bullet? And if there are children they can't give consent so their parents have to do it and in writing in the presence of a public notary. I highly doubt that all of the necessary protocols were followed to get a mutual combat public shootout duly authorized in accordance with the law.

They must have some very interesting gun laws in Chicago because even in Texas that wouldn't fly. Surely charges of reckless endangerment are the least we could expect. Not to mention checking to see that everyone who was firing a gun was able to legally possess one.

[cherrypoptart]

Honestly, it's stuff like this that tells people they need to keep their ability to protect themselves because the police and the judges and the district attorneys just will not do it. The judges and the district attorneys often aren't even trying. In fact, their priority is to keep young men out of prison no matter how dangerous they are. I understand it's against the law to say that but that's the truth.