10 dead, 52 wounded on 4th of July in Chicago

Didn't the criminals get the memo? GUNS ARE BANNED IN CHICAGO! This is what happen when you take guns away from law-abiding citizen. #DoYouRegretBanningGunsInYourState

The Chicago Police Department put more officers on the street for the long holiday weekend, but it wasn’t enough to stop gun violence that left 10 people dead and more than 50 others injured.

http://wgntv.com/2015/07/06/10-dead-52-injured-after-violent-holiday-weekend-in-chicago/

I think more guns in this case would lead to more dead people.

must be all the illegal Canadians coming across the unprotected northern border, bringing their problems with them, fucking savages

Well in this regards, people kill people, not the guns themselves. It is the way of things stuff like this happens and 4th of July isn't surprising. My Condolence to the family and friends who lost there love one's.

"but it wasn’t enough to stop gun violence that left 10 people dead and more than 50 others injured."

Fight fire with fire
I like it

Here's an epiphany: People use guns to kill people.

Some parts of Chicago are fine but others not so much. It's very simplistic to say that the lack of the second amendment (or use of guns if you're pro-gun control) is the reason why there is a high crime rate. Also, around the United States, crime rates are dropping and that does include Chicago despite recent news. In fact, some suggest that Chicago's crime rate dropped because more residents are getting CCW licenses (I know what you might think but guns are a great deterrent and, again, crime rates are dropping nationwide).

That said, Chicago has many problems: Chicago has gangs, drug trafficking, lack of police and police corruption, failing education, high level of poverty, and a corrupt government.

Switzerland disagrees....

Have there been any protests with "Black Lives Matter" as the sticking point?

crazy thing is violent crime is actually down in chicago vs. last year.

What's the alternative? Chiraq already tried banning handguns and that did absolutely nothing to stop gun crime. The only thing an absolute ban does is harm those who legitimately seek to protect themselves.

That reminds me of the DRM argument. Game publishers who foolishly add DRM games to "protect" their IP are only punishing the legitimate customers, not the pirates who get past their silly DRM with ease.

This. If we can wave a magic wand and make all of the guns and people's knowledge of guns disappear, then absolutely, there will be less death. But unfortunately laws don't work like magic. Criminals don't follow them, so you are effectively only taking guns from law abiding citizens or turn them into criminals. Gun issue is a scapegoat for politicians, who aren't focused on fixing the issue as they are looking for votes.

@Solaryellow: There's a video in the link with Chicago residents marching for peace. This is nothing new.

Don't forget Iceland, Norway, Northern Ireland, and Sweden.

Here's another one: gun control law don't take guns from criminals doing the killing.

I'm against guns but I also think that you americans are probably past the point where an outright ban really works.

I would say that we were never at the point where an outright ban will work. At its basic, gun is a representation of power and US is founded on the fundamental idea of individual empowerment. The concept is culturally foreign to Europeans because they have historically lived under authoritative bodies. Guns and by extension, power reside or is held by someone in your country, whether that be the police or soldiers. Your safety or the stability of your society is being maintained by those individuals. Americans value independence so we want that ability and responsibility for ourselves.

Here's one more: Criminals are 'normal' people before they become criminals.

There is no real gun ban in Chicago...it's just some writing on a piece of paper. Chicago doesn't monitor nor defend their "municipal borders" from firearms. Without enforcement, the "ban" is meaningless.

Ok what are we discussing here?

Dunno. Lost it.

Switzerland is not this case, now is it? My thinking was that if more people had guns in this case, it is a chance that they would open fire as well and thus possible increasing the death count even more.

Well an alternative could be perhaps a more extensive background check (I have no idea how common those are) and a quick course about gun safety. Though the gun safety course wouldn't be relevant in this case...

I don't understand your argument, you're content with only criminals having access to guns? Because law abiding citizens are the only ones that's going to adhere to any firearm restrictions.

And how would a more extensive background check prevent gangbangers (which account for most of the gun violence in Chicago) from getting their hands on guns? They never get them through legal channels.

I won't really go further on it. I understand that this banning of guns is more like a few nice words on paper and not working effectively. And my argument suits better if suicide by use of guns was the topic at hand, not some gang shootout.

That must have been one hell of a party O.o

The question was simple: Were people marching and using the slogan "black lives matter" like they do when a white guy kills a black guy? Yes or No?

@Solaryellow:

That line is used when a cop unjustly kills or uses unnecessary force on a black person, not because the aggressor is white.

What relevance does this have? Black people are concerned what's going on in their communities especially in Chicago and are protesting.

I honestly don't believe that would work in this instance. If this was legal gun owners causing the problem then I could see where those actions might make a difference but the problem in Chicago has never been about legal gun owners. It has been about the criminals who don't go through background checks to get their guns(most of them don't legally buy them, nor can they because of criminal records) and they certainly don't go to state-mandated safety classes.

The only solution I can think of is to increase funding towards police task forces that specifically focus on illegal guns. Now I have no idea if Chicago is doing that or not, but that's really the only way to reduce illegal guns on the street without banning them outright. And I don't think preventing those who simply want to protect themselves from obtaining a handgun is a reasonable solution.

That's the narrative you choose to pursue, huh? It seems as if blacks are more up in arms when someone of the majority persuasion kills a black kid. Save the b.s. "that line is only used when a cop......" for someone willing to buy it.

The relevance is that we don't see any consistency with the black community when it is black on black violence.

You should take a closer look at Switzerland's actual gun laws. The type of rules surrounding mandatory gun ownership they have would not fly at all in the US.

They should legalize it. It would take some revenue off the gangs plus it might make the population chill out.

Again, black people in cities like Chicago and Detroit are protesting crime in their cities. They do care and do what change.. It's just not as reported as much. Here's a link to further prove my point: The Atlantic

That line has been used to address the many times the police have been accused of unfairly targeting and criminalizing black people. People can focus on multiple issues and have differing opinions. Black people (and every other person of race, color, or creed) don't operate on a hive mind.

Also since when did "Blacklivesmatter" have been used on a white person (not a cop) killing a black person? And why does it matter in this discussion? As stated already, black people living in places like Chicago and Detroit do care and want change but they can also care about other issues such as police abuse and brutality which is a big deal considering there have been high profile cases affecting mostly black people.

Hopefully everyone is staying safe until the riots end.

..

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/ the use of firearms nationwide for self defense is so low that it isn't even a blip on the radar.... This isn't suggesting we should ban guns but people need to stop using the tired old argument of leaving people defenseless or other such things..

@sSubZerOo:

Couldn't it be argued that guns act as a deterrent to prevent such an idea of breaking and entering? Just a thought.

Anyways, again, changing gun laws won't matter unless you reform government, policing, housing, education, and the economy. The reason why countries with high gun ownership tend to have a lower crime rate isn't just because of gun ownership. It's also good governance, decent education, and a good economy.

That has nothing to do with the premise that it's due to the volume of gun owners............

The problem though is the states with most gun ownership are not the states with the lowest crime rates.. This falls along the lines of claiming the death penalty as a deterrent for crime, it isn't.. Yet again I do not suggest we should ban guns but this cry out about leaving people defenseless needs to stop, the use of guns for self defense is extremely small.

@sSubZerOo: using the number of justifiable homicides to determine the number of times guns prevented crime is like using the number of traffic deaths to determine how many times people used their brakes to not get into an accident.

Which leads into the other part is the fact that the states that have the most guns are not the safest.. In fact some, like Louisiana or Alabama, are in the top 10 per capita of violent crimes yet have some of the highest gun ownership in the country.. So not only are events requiring the use of a firearm are extremely low, but some of the states with the highest gun ownership in fact have the highest violent crime rates..

@sSubZerOo: the think progress story is horribly bad science. Its not even arguable.

And if you ate it up how can I trust anything else you believe? I'm sorry man I don't mean to be a dick about it but come on. I have seen every kind of statistic related to prevention of gun crime from the left and the right and they are almost all nothing but speculation and bullshit that supported what the opinion of the author is.

We are never going to really know because in the end events that do not occur don't get reported as anything other than personal anecdotal evidence.

That's only a stop gap, not even an effective one at that. Again gun is a scapegoat, the long term solution is address the roots of the social issues that are creating these gangs. As Gwynnblade mentioned, criminals didn't start out as criminals, the city need to look into why "normal" kids are turning into criminals and murders and prevent it.

It does leave people defenseless. If you don't have access to a firearm to protect yourself, you are defenseless. I'm not saying anything about how often somebody needs to defend themselves but the fact still remains that, occasionally, the need does arise.

You have no idea how effective it would be. We're not making guns out as a scape goat. The fact is that illegal guns ARE a problem. The long-term solution is to not only address social issues, but to address the issue of illegal guns as well. Addressing one doesn't necessarily address the other.

The overplayed "black lives matter" bullshit has been used beyond the scope of mere white police killing a black. The point, which is escaping you, is how blacks tend to react and respond differently when a death results from black on black as opposed to white on black. Baltimore burned. The town in Missouri burned. There were riots after Zimmerman (who was neither white nor a cop) was acquitted. Now they learn to protest like adults? A white person (cop or civilian) could shoot an unarmed black person today and all hell will break loose. Do you understand the different reactions depending on who does the killing?

Neither do you. But let me ask you this: how would you specifically target illegal guns without restricting the rights of ordinary citizens that Chicago isn't already doing?

You of all people should understand that funding is a competition within different component of the government. Those additional funding for the cops to ineffectively fight illegal arms is better spent else where like addressing those social issues.

If banning everyone in a given area from owning guns does not solve the problem of gun violence, while those in surrounding areas continue to have access to guns, we can wonder what shall.

Based on current data, it is not safe to say that banning guns in the surrounding areas shall end gun violence in the United States. The United Kingdom, for example, has inconclusive evidence about gun violence:

While the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and fell to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.^[88] The overall total declined progressively to 9,555 in 2011/12, with included 1,377 imitation and 3,554 air weapon offences.^[89] 201/12 saw yet a further fall to a total of 8,135, which included 1,225 imitation and 2,977 air weapon offences.^[90] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher.^[88]

At any rate above zero, something definitely needs doing in America about gun violence. Traditional views towards crime and punishment definitely have some relation to the state of mind many Americans regard success, criminality, and acceptance with each day.

Sorry, your argument is myopic and trivializing. If we are going to talk about issues related to race, survey the culture of the relevant societies beyond this century.

The study is by Violence Policy Center, an organization with well known pro gun control agenda, so the source is hardly impartial. And you've also misrepresented the data in the study. The number of justifiable homicide is low, NOT the use of firearm in self defense situations. It's impossible to track or even estimate correctly the number of times guns are used in defense where it didn't result in someone being killed, this case is the perfect example.