"Store manager shot dead in Chicago"...How?? They have such restrictive gun laws!

[Logical]

Wow. See story below. I hope the anti-gun folks speak up and explain how this criminal obtained a gun in Chicago which has very restrictive gun laws. And explain how you think it was a great idea that this man was not armed when he was shot in the back room. Sounds like maybe he even opened the safe before they shot him in the back of the head. I have no idea who killed this man or the details, but it happens 100s of times a day and the people getting shot do not seem to have much support from you anti-ccw people.

Some info for the anti-gun people:

-Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. There are 300 million on the streets, maybe at least 90 million handguns, and that is not going to change EVER. If you think it will, please list how you would remove them legally and realistically. Face it, that battle is lost. It will never happen and no one will ever ban the sales of handguns in this country. I bet you could not find 10 liberal dems in the Senate and House willing to ban handgun sales. So give it up!! There are over a million new handguns purchased monthly. And registration and/or background checks for private sales will not stop home burglaries of guns, etc. Guns will always be on the streets. And the criminals will ALWAYS have them. If you have a solution post it here and I will be glad to tell you where your logic is flawed.

-Honest CCW citizens have very few issues with guns and at a far lower rate than the average citizen. So while criminals have guns, you anti-gun people want to prevent honest citizens from carrying them. This is where people think you are not thinking logically. You seem much less concerned about a unarmed citizen getting shot than you do about the unarmed citizen being able to carry a gun for self defense. Makes no sense.

How can you not think that a store clerk should have a right to have a gun when many criminals who might rob him WILL have a gun? If this store owner would have shot and killed the robber you would not be celebrating the store owner, but be blasting CCW laws.

Maybe your logic is that you would rather lose a few store clerks than allow honest citizens to carry guns.

This is a dangerous country, but CCW license holders are not the reason.

And do not respond with your gun outrage unless you can answer my "removing guns" question above. Thanks!

A first-degree murder took place sometime between the evening of May 5 and morning of May 6 at Wabash Food & Liquor, 234 S. Wabash Ave. The victim, 57-year-old Edward Jernagin, was the store’s nighttime clerk. No suspects have been identified.

A store employee arrived at work the morning of May 6 to discover the store’s security gate open and the front door locked. The employee than called the nighttime clerk — who was responsible for securing the premises the night before — and received no response.

About thirty minutes later, the store manager arrived, unlocked the door and entered the store, accompanied by the employee. The manager discovered Jernagin in the store’s back office lying motionless, facedown, with an apparent gunshot wound to his head. The manager told the store employee who proceeded to call 911.

<snip>

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/05-11-2011/Murder_at_Loop_convenience_store

[CreekDog]

1. Where guns are more restriced and less-prevalent, you are less likely to be murdered by one

Where guns are less restricted and more prevalent, you are more likely to be murdered by one.

:hi:

[Logical]

2. Please provide your proof for that. We are all looking forward to it. n-t

[X_Digger]

3. aka correlation = causation, again? *sigh* n/t

[CreekDog]

7. your post indicates progress because before you wouldn't admit correlation

:rofl:

[X_Digger]

11. Sorry, I should have put quotes around it.. that's your claim, not mine.

There are enough 'exceptions' to your 'rule' as to make it meaningless.

[CreekDog]

18. i didn't post a rule --i posted a correlation

see your "rule" is that you can misrepresent my posts and i'm not allowed to properly represent yours.

[X_Digger]

39. No, you claimed a correlation, then backed away from it, claiming it was just "my opinion"..

As another poster put it, "One black swan doesn't tell you how many swans are black, but it does prove that not all swans are white."

There are countries with low gun ownership, yet high gun crime (russia, the bahamas, estonia) as well as countries with low ownership and low low murder rates (spain, singapore, denmark).

Similarly, there are US states that match those same categories.

If your confidence interval for a correlation depends on cherry picking your data, you're doing it wrong.

[damntexdem]

9. Better than citing a single case.

They way this thread started.

[slackmaster]

4. That's why Chicago and DC have such low murder rates, and Vermont is so dangerous

:dunce:

[CreekDog]

6. you very carefully omitted New York

Which in fact us one of our safest big cities.

[slackmaster]

12. Crime of all kinds is low in NYC

Just as crime of all kinds is common in Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, etc.

[CreekDog]

17. Phoenix?

is crime high in Phoenix?

[X_Digger]

40. It's lower than in New Haven, CT. ;-)

[CreekDog]

45. is that a tic that you have?

you know, always bringing up a high crime city, with a certain demographic?

it's almost predictable.

it's like you're winking at me, like you're saying, 1) guns don't cause crime 2) high crime is, you know, in those type of places. you know???

i mean, if you think you're being coy about it, you're not.

:wtf:

[X_Digger]

46. It's a lovely exception to your "correlation".. especially when compared to Phoenix. n/t

[gejohnston]

49. OK if you want to play that game

El Paso, big city had two murders. Cuidad Juarez 120. Similar demographics. Which has stricter gun laws, Texas or Mexico? Pick any rural area with large Hispanic or African American population, who own as many guns as their Anglo neighbors, also have low crime rates.

[CreekDog]

50. El Paso's not rural

and rural areas don't have uniformly low crime rates.

[gejohnston]

51. I know

you missed the point, but I am hoping I missed your point that led to this post.

[CreekDog]

55. So if Juarez residents had more guns, they'd be safer?

:shrug:

[eqfan592]

56. More like the strict gun laws AREN'T making them safer.

I believe that is much closer to the point being made. The strict gun laws are failing to address the primary causes of the crime.

[gejohnston]

57. depends on who has the guns

Or does not. Since Mexico's biggest problem at the moment is a free for all between the drug gangs fighting over trade routes and the military trying to take them down is one thing. But there we are talking about para military stuff that can't be found at Wal Mart.
If we are talking about street crime then you could make an argument for that. There are a lot of unsolved serial murders in Juarez, since most of the victims are working class women the police has not really been putting a lot of effort in solving it. If one of these ladies had a pistol, then very possibly.
When antis use say "gun owners" or "the NRA" is the cause of our crime problem, that tells me I and some of the other folks here are either closet gangsters or selling on the black market. Kind of like equating the deer hunter in West PA with the gangster in Pittsburgh. Since I do not sell guns on the black market, I do not smoke pot, I do not put the gun in their hand nor do I give them the money to buy it. I am old enough to remember when, before crack and Nixon's war on drugs, these gangs used only knives and tire chains. If they had a gun it was home made zip guns. What changed? Money. The best way to take away their guns is to take away their money.
History repeats itself. Before the Volstead act and the Harrison act, the mob could barely afford cheap pistols let alone submachine guns. Any guns I have sold I consign to an FFL so I do know who is not getting it.

[gejohnston]

58. eqfan592 has it exactly

[CreekDog]

19. how do they keep the crime rate low in a big city with restrictive gun control and low gun ownership

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

21. NYC has a very effective police department

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4849149

[CreekDog]

so gun laws neither hurt or help the crime rate?

okay.

[eqfan592]

27. The evidence does tend to point to gun restrictions....

...or the lack thereof having minimal impact on the crime rate.

[slackmaster]

36. That would be the proper null hypotheses, if one was inclined to study the issue scientifically

:hi:

[gejohnston]

65. ask the mayor of Bern or Zurich

of what they are doing right.

Then ask the mayor of Kingston and ask what he is doing wrong.

[eqfan592]

26. Low in compairison to what?

It's still well above the national average, even though it may have dropped over the years.

[rl6214]

5. Ummm, I don't think so

but I'm sure you do have some links you can provide that will prove your assertion?

You just can post a 'fact' and run away.

[CreekDog]

8. and when you see them you will correct your posting and admit the correlation is true

i didn't think so. :rofl:

[Logical]

28. If you have read any stats there is no proof either way......

Oakland is number 4 in violent crime rates and they have no CCW there. And many Texas cities are low and there is a lot of CCW there.
And your argument is the oldest and least accurate out there.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. You are missing something.

The biggest predictor of firearm homicide is not the prevalence of firearm ownership.

The biggest predictor of firearm homicide is prior criminal history of the firearm owner.

Most firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories.

[gejohnston]

43. so why is Vermont safer than Japan

Same with Wyoming

While Chicago and DC is well, Chicago and DC.

Also explain Finland, Norway, and Switzerland where gun ownership is high. Then there is Jamaica, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Russia. In fact all of the countries with higher murder rates all have stricter gun laws than most of Europe.
Have another over simplification?

[lawodevolution]

60. "where guns are more restricted..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=407157&mesg_id=407157

World trends are opposite to your claim.
averaging in the 90 most violent nations vs 90 least violent nations. The least violent nations have 3 times higher civilian gun possession rate.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. So I'm less dead if I am instead murdered with a knife or club?

My gun give me the ability to fight against criminals if I have too.

[CreekDog]

10. Criminals will always have guns?

Always?

It's pretty easy to disprove someone who says 100% about anything. Just takes one exception.

Hmmm, did any criminals today lack a gun? :dilemma:

[slackmaster]

13. More than two million US criminals don't have access to guns today

Because they're incarcerated.

[CreekDog]

14. well the OP said criminals will always have access to guns

take up your correction with the OP.

:hi:

[one-eyed fat man]

64. Those 2 million criminals

who are gun free because of their incarceration should be living in peaceful gated communities by your standard. Why are so many murders committed in prison? Why is rape, extortion, assault, robbery and theft endemic in prisons?

They don't have guns! Why aren't they crime free?

Maybe prisons are full of nasty badass mother-killers and father-rapers?

You willing to bend over to pick up the soap in the shower at San Quentin and prove different?

[eqfan592]

15. That statement "criminals will always have guns"....

does not require that ALL criminals have guns, just that at least some criminals have guns all the time. Given that fact that heavy restrictions on firearms ownership has failed yet to abolish firearm related crime in those nations, I believe the statement has much more validity than you care to admit.

[CreekDog]

16. where are they getting them?

i mean, aren't criminals prohibited from obtaining guns through a legal source?

[eqfan592]

20. Black Market.

Shutting down black market trade is next to impossible. Heck, we can't even shut down the black market for human beings, much less drugs or firearms.

[Logical]

23. Hmmm.....how do "criminals" get guns? Maybe by committing a crime? n-tbvg

[X_Digger]

41. The last time the DOJ studied it in the US..

40% illegal / black market
40% friends / family
10% "retail" (straw) purchases
4% pawn shop
1% flea markets
<1% gun shows

[CreekDog]

42. so a majority are from legal holders of guns?

or so it would appear.

this means a huge chunk of the criminal source of guns is from people who aren't restricted from owning guns.

sounds like legal gun holders are a big part of the problem and most of you would loosen restrictions on this group.

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

44. You did not ask the method of acquisition, just the source. (You asked where, not how.)

A majority of the ones from family / friends are stolen.

*sigh* You'll strain a hamstring jumping to so many conclusions.

[eqfan592]

53. Nice try....

...oh sure, we could solve a TON of problems if we just slapped heavier restrictions on all the law abiding citizens out there, but really it's not a road we want, nor need to travel down, for a variety of reasons that have been gone over many times here. The real problem is the crime itself, who's root causes are not the availability of firearms, but rather poverty, poor education, gentrification, etc.

[Logical]

22. Wow, that is the best you can come up with?

Yes, criminals will always have guns available. Are you saying criminals will someday never use guns for crimes? Or do you not realize that criminals use guns for crimes. I am not sure of your point.

[CreekDog]

25. I've posted a lot in this forum over several months, including detailed statistics

but no gun advocate here will talk about a dataset on a statistical basis.

they are the global warming deniers of crime and gun statistics.

and perhaps they deny global warming as well for all i know --i rarely see most of them on the rest of DU unless a gun issue is raised.

[Logical]

29. Link me to your post. Since criminologists cannot even prove it either way it will be interesting...

to see how you do it. It might be the proof all the anti's have been waiting for.

[eqfan592]

32. I'd be curious as well...

...especially since the usual comparison I make of the anti's is to global warming deniers, given their total inability to view evidence in a rational manner :P

[Logical]

33. I agree with you. Too much emotion involved to use logic. n-t

[gejohnston]

47. sorry your side are the climate science deniers

depending on shill research and moral outrage. The best way to prove your hypothesis is to see before and after a law is passed. Canada's stricter gun laws were passed in 1977. No change. Most European countries after World War One, no change. Jamaica got worse even though there is a total ban as did UK.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you are saying that some hunter, target shooter, etc is the cause of drug gangs killing each other.

[thereismore]

24. Not restrictive enough, obviously. Don't answer that, I am not interested. nt

[Logical]

30. Another cryptic post. n-t

[ileus]

31. Another gun on human crime...it's time to ban guns.

[Logical]

34. GREAT.....you might be the answer I was looking for......

Please provide details to your short solution. Like how you plan in implementing your requested changed!

[sharesunited]

35. Chicago borders on Indiana which has guns, ammo and fireworks.

Make them scarce from sea to shining sea.

[gejohnston]

48. that works great in Russia, Jamaica, Brazil right?

Oh yeah South Africa. Nonsense distraction that does nothing.

[Logical]

54. You ignored my post request. How do you plan on doing that? n-t

[sharesunited]

59. How did the crusade against child pornography begin? Public policy.

Mere possession is not tolerated.

[LAGC]

61. Yet, despite our best efforts, its still very prevalent.

Or have you never heard of teens "sexting?"

[beevul]

62. It started with the realization of the fact...

It started with the realization of the fact harm - real factual harm - is involved with MAKING it.

Possessing it, is possessing something in which for every single case, an individual was harmed.



Guns? Not so much.




Not that I'd expect you to know the difference, or acknowledge it if you did.

If there were 300 million pictures which were kiddie porn, there would be 300 million cases of an individual being harmed, in the making of it.

300 million guns on the other hand?


You have a lot of examples to come up with to draw any parallel.

Better start now. Better skip sleeping as much as you can too. Skip family time. Skip church. Skip eating when you can.

Life, in the context of meeting that goal, is short.


Or you could behave like a rational human being, and skip it to begin with.

[Katya Mullethov]

63. Damn

No time , no time, no time left for Wapner ?

[sharesunited]

69. Guns not so much? Children executed by dads over custody disputes. That's some real harm.

Children accidentally shooting themselves or their siblings or their friends.

Children felled by drive-by target practice or neighborhood random discharges.

The harm caused by CP is non-lethal, yet public policy coddles the lethal threat posed by guns and ammo.

That's shamefully inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy.

[beevul]

71. You have no business even uttering the word hypocrisy.

"Guns not so much?"

Yeah, thats right shares. Guns not so much.

300 million guns, now all you have to do is show show 300 million cases of material harm, to draw your parallel correctly. Hey, don't sweat it - you only have 280 million + examples to cite.


I'd suggest not wasting any more of your time trying to convince foreign armies to come confiscate guns in America...


Because you have A LOT of work to do.

[sharesunited]

72. The very number you cite speaks volumes. America the marketplace for capricious infliction.

If we just sideline those citizens who have ten or more, we would take care of so much of the problem.

As long as we turn off the spigot simultaneously.

Are you in?

[beevul]

73. It does, just NOT in the way you'd like it to.

"If we just sideline those citizens who have ten or more, we would take care of so much of the problem."

Right...because the people that own ten or more are the ones committing all the gun crime... :eyes:


OHHH, I get what your saying - it isn't that they're committing all the crimes, its that they're standing in the way of your agenda.

Too fucking bad.

"As long as we turn off the spigot simultaneously."


Good luck with that.

"Are you in?"


No. Not only am I NOT in, but I have an agenda of my own:


To see the gun lobby and gun culture grow so large and so powerful that attitudes like yours are as a dust particle in a tornado

To see that people like you NEVER have the power to force your ignorant misguided antigun agenda on others.

[Straw Man]

75. Infliction of what?

Empty platitudes?

If we just sideline those citizens who have ten or more, we would take care of so much of the problem.

You're scaring me again. "Sideline"? As in "out of the game"? This wouldn't have anything to do with boxcars and barbed wire, would it? What exactly are you talking about? Try to be concrete, as much as it may hurt.

[Logical]

68. OK, slower now, and where do you see ANY support for that from ANY member of congress? n-t

[valerief]

37. We'd have fewer criminals if we weren't such a banana republic.

Desperation breeds criminals.

[gejohnston]

52. Is this the first time we agreed on something

of course there will still be the small number of sociopaths.

[valerief]

66. Yep, there will always be nuts, but desperation felt by the average person can be prevented.

[Starboard Tack]

67. I don't see any mention in the piece about whether the victim was armed

or not and a CC permit has no relevance. The clerk could and probably should and may have had access to a firearm. Defending yourself in a high risk environment is common sense and has nothing to do with indiscriminate toting.

[Straw Man]

74. Being Chicago, the assumption is no.

Defending yourself in a high risk environment is common sense and has nothing to do with indiscriminate toting.

People become victims in all kinds of unlikely places. "Indiscriminate toting"? Who decides what is "discriminate"? The mayor? The chief of police? You? Does the person have to suffer an attack before the determination of need can be made? Rather too late for this fellow.

Arm the dead! It's the right thing to do.