Derec
Contributor
You can't even read your own source, as bad as it was to begin with.73 people shot by white people is hardly two or three.
Sad.
You can't even read your own source, as bad as it was to begin with.73 people shot by white people is hardly two or three.
Maybe Mayor Lightfoot should promise blacks in Chicago $5M per person like San Francisco is idiotically doing ...It was the redlining wut done it.
Neither have you. Except, your screengrab really was crap.You still can't reveal where the source data is for that crap you posted.
More black perps than victims. It's not that different in the US. Twice as many whites are killed by blacks than vice versa.
It is the "progressive" Dems like Foxx and Lightfoot who are going easy on gun criminals. And the lefty judge who acquitted Ruben Roman (the 21 year old who was shooting at cars with 13 year old Adam Toledo).- stronger sentences against anyone caught carrying a gun (so the price for carrying one around is too high to risk doing it)
That is true. What makes Chicago special is that it is the third largest US city, and it has a very high crime rate. Not as high a murder rate as say St. Louis (voted out a moderate Dem prosecutor and elected a "progressive" after Ferguson riots) or Detroit. But those cities are not nearly as big as Chiraq.and Chicago is not really any worse, per capita, than a lot of small cites and towns that don't keep such accurate statistics. I once lived in such places.
I am not bleating. There are people who suggest banning guns for private use, or at least for self-defense.So Derec, IF (a big if I know) the existing gun laws are enforced will you please stop bleating about guns being confiscated?
Not my obsession. I am responding to either people on here, or in the news (such as Biden or β) obsessing over AR15s.And why your obsession with AR-15s or derivatives? Most of your posts seem have you shoe-horning in the word AR-15.
I'm more interested in how the US came to be a rat's nest of cowardly weenies holed up in their shitty houses with AR15s and thousands of rounds of ammunition because they are terrified of "others".
I'm done here, until the next right wing terrorist attack.
You are, as usual, wrong.I have.
Have you?
No?
I don't know all, but I would bet I know more than you. I know enough to be more afraid of some thug with a nine than of a weenie with an AR15.As usual you are reading about guns and fooling yourself into thinking you know all about them.
Semi-auto firearms? Or certain semi-auto rifles?Illinois bans semi-auto firearms. Gov sez it will save “hundreds of lives”.
Most likely not. Prosecuting and convicting gun criminals like Ruben Roman would do much more good than going after non-criminals who own rifles.Will gun deaths go down in Illinois?
Definitely not. Would you consider banning cars capable of driving more than 50mph? "If it saves ONE life", right? Or two. Or ten. Would have saved two in Athens just the other day, most likely.If it only saves ONE life, is it worth it?
Dismissing people's legitimate concerns about personal freedoms as "freedumb" is the hallmark of a totalitarian.Have Illinois residents lost their freedumb?
A newer article about the Goshen shooting.We don't actually know what happened and why, only what the police have commented to the press.
Pretty cold-blooded.NY Times said:Details about the crime were sketchy, but in a later interview Sheriff Boudreaux told The Los Angeles Times that a deputy responding to the call found the infant cradled in the arms of her 16-year-old mother in a ditch outside the home. Both had been shot in the head.
So, contrary to what you wrote earlier, they did find drugs at the house.Sheriff Boudreaux said that his office executed a search warrant at the property last week, seizing guns, marijuana and methamphetamine. He told The Los Angeles Times that he believed the attack was connected to a drug cartel.
“This was not your run-of-the-mill, low-end gang member,” Sheriff Boudreaux told the newspaper, adding that the “manner and swiftness” of the killings suggested the men were experienced in murder. Many of the victims had been shot in the head, including the older woman, who was found in a bed inside the home, he said.
A bail for a laundry list of crimes like that? With felony priors and being on parole?Your Central Valley said:Regarding the history of law enforcement at the home, deputies say that on January 3 they conducted a parole compliance check on this home. They say it’s a known home to the Sheriff’s Office as gang activity has routinely occurred in the past. During the compliance check deputies saw shell casings outside of the home. When asked to enter the residence deputies were denied entry – so they obtained a search warrant.
Deputies say that during the search of the home, they found Eladio Parraz, who already had felony convictions, was in possession of ammunition, a felon in possession of a firearm, a felon in possession of a short barrel rifle, a felon in possession of an assault weapon, had a loaded weapon, was in possession of a firearm, and possession of a controlled substance. However, Parraz was able to bail out of jail four days later.
A newer article about the Goshen shooting.We don't actually know what happened and why, only what the police have commented to the press.
6 Shot Dead, Including Mother and Baby, at California Home
Pretty cold-blooded.NY Times said:Details about the crime were sketchy, but in a later interview Sheriff Boudreaux told The Los Angeles Times that a deputy responding to the call found the infant cradled in the arms of her 16-year-old mother in a ditch outside the home. Both had been shot in the head.
So, contrary to what you wrote earlier, they did find drugs at the house.Sheriff Boudreaux said that his office executed a search warrant at the property last week, seizing guns, marijuana and methamphetamine. He told The Los Angeles Times that he believed the attack was connected to a drug cartel.
“This was not your run-of-the-mill, low-end gang member,” Sheriff Boudreaux told the newspaper, adding that the “manner and swiftness” of the killings suggested the men were experienced in murder. Many of the victims had been shot in the head, including the older woman, who was found in a bed inside the home, he said.
And another article:
6 victims of Goshen deadly shooting identified: ‘It’s shocking to the nation’
Most of the victims have the same last name, Parraz. So it might well be that some of the victims were not involved in criminal activity.
I don't know all,
but I would bet I know more than you.
1. A very real and very large part of the problem is contained in the words: your side. There should be no ‘sides.’ It should just be working together towards a common goal—in this case responsible gun ownership.What do you consider "very struck[sic] restrictions", and how do you propose such restrictions will pass constitutional muster?I think that the number of deaths and injuries caused by semiautomatic firearms ( hand guns and long guns) is more than adequate reason t place very struck restrictions on their ownership and availability. Much the same way that fentanyl should be severely restricted.
Also, what is your opinion of revolvers?
It is also not a reason to withhold it from people who need it.Yes people get hold of fentanyl illegally and sometimes die from it. That is not a reason to make it legal.
They are not exactly analogous. And I would welcome stricter requirements for gun ownership. When your side starts talking about level of onerous regulation that is tantamount to a de facto ban for personal use, that's where we part ways.Same thing with guns.
I am objecting to her being considered an innocent. She chose to be in the situation. The kid is definitely an innocent.Depends what you consider a mass shooting.But this isn't really a mass shooting. One house was targeted--that is almost always a drug rip regardless of the death toll. Unfortunately, an innocent was in the middle of it (the woman was probably with one of the targets--you choose to live with scum, sometimes bad things happen.)Not quite seeing the humor.
You got the part about "baby and its teenage mother murdered", right?
Also, your utter lack of empathy for the victims is astounding. You know almost nothing about these people, but are certain they deserved to die? Even a 16 year old girl and her baby, because she "should have known better" than to live in a house ravaged by police and gang violence? Who was shot in the head while trying to run away with her child?
I think the key factor here is "indiscriminate". Note how only about 1% of "mass shootings" are public/indiscriminate. That says the vast majority are gangland or domestic (and in practice they're almost all the former.) The indiscriminate shootings pose a risk to everyone, the gangland ones rarely harm anyone outside the gangs. People typically are much more concerned about threats that are indiscriminate vs threats to those who chose to be in the situation. You want to climb Annapurna, that's your business, you're taking the risk. You put one round in a revolver, spin the cylinder and shoot a random passerby, society should stop you pronto. The fact that the former activity carries a higher fatality rate is irrelevant, it's the latter that should be (and is) banned.As I said before, depends on your definition. There are various definitions used (which leads to some confusion) and only some require the shooting to be indiscriminate and in a public place.But this isn't really a mass shooting.
Since you've ignored the chart I posted upthread, here it is again.
The execution of two children is not less of a tragedy because you feel one of them was either dating, or just the daughter of, the "wrong person". You don't have to be "innocent" to deserve better than to be murdered in the street by a criminal gang.I am objecting to her being considered an innocent. She chose to be in the situation. The kid is definitely an innocent.Depends what you consider a mass shooting.But this isn't really a mass shooting. One house was targeted--that is almost always a drug rip regardless of the death toll. Unfortunately, an innocent was in the middle of it (the woman was probably with one of the targets--you choose to live with scum, sometimes bad things happen.)Not quite seeing the humor.
You got the part about "baby and its teenage mother murdered", right?
Also, your utter lack of empathy for the victims is astounding. You know almost nothing about these people, but are certain they deserved to die? Even a 16 year old girl and her baby, because she "should have known better" than to live in a house ravaged by police and gang violence? Who was shot in the head while trying to run away with her child?
Pales in comparison to yours.Thats an understatement. Your ignorance is well documented, right here.
Not 1%. More like 22%. Using the same casualty definition (4 or more killed), there were 27 any/any mass shootings and 6 public/indiscriminate ones.I think the key factor here is "indiscriminate". Note how only about 1% of "mass shootings" are public/indiscriminate.
I understand that indiscriminate shootings carry a greater psychological fear. Btw, innocent people are frequently victims in gang shootings due to stray bullets.That says the vast majority are gangland or domestic (and in practice they're almost all the former.) The indiscriminate shootings pose a risk to everyone, the gangland ones rarely harm anyone outside the gangs.
There perhaps shouldn't be, but there are. I agree with your goal as stated here, but we differ in what that entails and how to achieve it.1. A very real and very large part of the problem is contained in the words: your side. There should be no ‘sides.’ It should just be working together towards a common goal—in this case responsible gun ownership.
First off, enforce current gun laws. Do not release gun criminals with a slap on the wrist just to show off your "progressive" bona fides.2. What is your idea of responsible stricter gun regulations?
Derec, I’m a terrible typist. I’ve always been a terrible typist. Software that autocorrects makes that worse as much as it corrects actual typos. I don’t see this improving so you can lay off any time now.
The presence of an infant (10 months, not six) in itself does not say anything about the mother's relationship to others in the house. Or the adults' relationships to each other. She could have been in her baby daddy's house (and she working for/with him) for all we knew initially. Instead, it turned out to be her uncle's.Does it normally take surnames for you to draw conclusions like that as opposed to, say, a 6 month old infant shot in the head?