Those Damn Guns Again II - Chicago
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Chicago woman loses 4th child to gun violence
Chicago woman loses 4th child to gun violence
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
CHICAGO (AP) - January 29, 2013 (WPVI) -- At least five people were gunned down Saturday in Chicago, including a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings.
Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a parked car on the city's West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said.
Shirley Chambers, whose two other sons and daughter were shot in separate attacks more than a decade ago, was left grieving again on Saturday, WLS-TV reported.
"Right now, I'm totally lost because Ronnie was my only surviving son," Chambers said.
Shirley Chambers' first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of one another in 2000.
"What did I do wrong? I was there for them. We didn't have everything we wanted but we had what we needed," she asked Saturday.
Chambers said despite this latest tragic chapter in her life, she's not bitter or angry.
"They took my only child. I have nobody right now. That's my only baby," she said.
A few hours after Ronnie Chambers was killed, a gunman opened fire on three men near a South Side eatery, killing two of them and wounding the third, police said.
On Saturday afternoon, detectives were called to the scene of another shooting in which a man in his 30s and a teenager were shot to death. There had been no arrests.
Chicago's homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008. As grim as it is, Chicago's homicide rate was almost double in the early 1990s - averaging around 900 - before violent crime began dropping in cities across America.
Last year's increase, though, stood in sharp contrast to New York, where homicides fell 21 percent from 2011, as of early December.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8971904
Chicago woman loses 4th child to gun violence
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
CHICAGO (AP) - January 29, 2013 (WPVI) -- At least five people were gunned down Saturday in Chicago, including a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings.
Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother Shirley's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a parked car on the city's West Side. A 21-year-old man who was also in the car was wounded, police said.
Shirley Chambers, whose two other sons and daughter were shot in separate attacks more than a decade ago, was left grieving again on Saturday, WLS-TV reported.
"Right now, I'm totally lost because Ronnie was my only surviving son," Chambers said.
Shirley Chambers' first child, Carlos, was shot and killed by a high school classmate in 1995 after an argument. He was 18. Her daughter Latoya, then 15, and her other son Jerome were shot and killed within months of one another in 2000.
"What did I do wrong? I was there for them. We didn't have everything we wanted but we had what we needed," she asked Saturday.
Chambers said despite this latest tragic chapter in her life, she's not bitter or angry.
"They took my only child. I have nobody right now. That's my only baby," she said.
A few hours after Ronnie Chambers was killed, a gunman opened fire on three men near a South Side eatery, killing two of them and wounding the third, police said.
On Saturday afternoon, detectives were called to the scene of another shooting in which a man in his 30s and a teenager were shot to death. There had been no arrests.
Chicago's homicide count eclipsed 500 last year for the first time since 2008. As grim as it is, Chicago's homicide rate was almost double in the early 1990s - averaging around 900 - before violent crime began dropping in cities across America.
Last year's increase, though, stood in sharp contrast to New York, where homicides fell 21 percent from 2011, as of early December.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=8971904
Girl who performed at Obama inaugural events slain on South Side
Girl who performed at Obama inaugural events slain on South Side
January 30, 2013|By Jennifer Delgado | Tribune reporter
After taking their exams Tuesday, Hadiya Pendleton and a group of others decided to hang out at a park on Tuesday just blocks away from their high school on the South Side.
But the trip ended in tragedy when the 15-year-old King College Prep sophomore was fatally shot about a week after she attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration and performed at inaugural events with the King College Prep band and drill team.
Penldeton and a16-year-old boy wounded in the attack were shot in a park near the school about 2:20 p.m., in the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue, police said.
Most of those who were in the park were gang members, and those in the group did not stay on scene to help after the shootings, according to police. The shooting occurred around 2:20 p.m. in the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue.
They boy remained in serious condition Tuesday night. He was also a student at King, according to Pendleton’s friends, though her relatives weren’t sure what school the boy attended.
One of the teens was taken in serious to critical condition to Comer Children's Hospital, according to Chicago Fire Department spokesman Will Knight.
The other victim also was taken to Comer and police at first believed both victims' conditions had stabilized by a little after 3 p.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala.
At Comer this evening, a group of young people sat and stood inside the entrance to the hospital's emergency room, along with the principal of King high school.
Many hugged as they brushed tears from their eyes and consoled each other and Pendleton's parents.
"She was awesome," one girl said of Pendleton outside the hospital's ER.
Friends of the slain girl said King was dismissed early today because of exams, and students went to the park on Oakenwald--something they don't usually do.
Friends said the girl was a majorette and a volleyball player, a friendly and sweet presence at King, one of the top 10 CPS selective enrollment schools. Pendleton performed with other King College students at President Barack Obama’s inaugural events.
Neighbors said students from King do hang out at Harsh Park, 4458-70 S. Oakenwald Ave., and that students were there this afternoon before the shooting took place. A group of 10 to 12 teens at the park had taken shelter under a canopy there during a rainstorm when a boy or man jumped a fence in the park, ran toward the group and opened fire, police said in a statement this evening.
The attacker then got into an auto and left the area, police said.
Neighbors reported hearing shots about 2:20 p.m.
Desiree Sanders said she heard six gunshots and called 911 after a neighbor told her that some teens had been shot. Neighbors told her as many as 10 young people had been hanging out at the small park, and most scattered after the shooting, though a few stayed behind with the victims.
Those in the group were not cooperating with police, however, and investigators had no detailed descriptions yet of either the attacker or the vehicle in which he left. Central Area detectives were investigating, and they had no one in custody as of about 8:20 p.m.
Police crime data show no serious crimes happened in the 4400 or 4500 blocks of South Oakenwald Avenue Dec. 19 to Jan. 20.
“It’s a great neighborhood. Nothing like this has happened since I’ve been here,” on the block, said Roxanne Hubbard, who has lived in the neighborhood for 19 years.
As a matter of policy, Chicago Board of Education officials refuse to confirm whether any child is a student at Chicago Public Schools because a policy on student identification passed by the board several years ago has never been implemented.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...130129_1_inaugural-events-small-park-students
Girl who performed at Obama inaugural events slain on South Side
January 30, 2013|By Jennifer Delgado | Tribune reporter
After taking their exams Tuesday, Hadiya Pendleton and a group of others decided to hang out at a park on Tuesday just blocks away from their high school on the South Side.
But the trip ended in tragedy when the 15-year-old King College Prep sophomore was fatally shot about a week after she attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration and performed at inaugural events with the King College Prep band and drill team.
Penldeton and a16-year-old boy wounded in the attack were shot in a park near the school about 2:20 p.m., in the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue, police said.
Most of those who were in the park were gang members, and those in the group did not stay on scene to help after the shootings, according to police. The shooting occurred around 2:20 p.m. in the 4500 block of South Oakenwald Avenue.
They boy remained in serious condition Tuesday night. He was also a student at King, according to Pendleton’s friends, though her relatives weren’t sure what school the boy attended.
One of the teens was taken in serious to critical condition to Comer Children's Hospital, according to Chicago Fire Department spokesman Will Knight.
The other victim also was taken to Comer and police at first believed both victims' conditions had stabilized by a little after 3 p.m., said Chicago Police News Affairs Officer Veejay Zala.
At Comer this evening, a group of young people sat and stood inside the entrance to the hospital's emergency room, along with the principal of King high school.
Many hugged as they brushed tears from their eyes and consoled each other and Pendleton's parents.
"She was awesome," one girl said of Pendleton outside the hospital's ER.
Friends of the slain girl said King was dismissed early today because of exams, and students went to the park on Oakenwald--something they don't usually do.
Friends said the girl was a majorette and a volleyball player, a friendly and sweet presence at King, one of the top 10 CPS selective enrollment schools. Pendleton performed with other King College students at President Barack Obama’s inaugural events.
Neighbors said students from King do hang out at Harsh Park, 4458-70 S. Oakenwald Ave., and that students were there this afternoon before the shooting took place. A group of 10 to 12 teens at the park had taken shelter under a canopy there during a rainstorm when a boy or man jumped a fence in the park, ran toward the group and opened fire, police said in a statement this evening.
The attacker then got into an auto and left the area, police said.
Neighbors reported hearing shots about 2:20 p.m.
Desiree Sanders said she heard six gunshots and called 911 after a neighbor told her that some teens had been shot. Neighbors told her as many as 10 young people had been hanging out at the small park, and most scattered after the shooting, though a few stayed behind with the victims.
Those in the group were not cooperating with police, however, and investigators had no detailed descriptions yet of either the attacker or the vehicle in which he left. Central Area detectives were investigating, and they had no one in custody as of about 8:20 p.m.
Police crime data show no serious crimes happened in the 4400 or 4500 blocks of South Oakenwald Avenue Dec. 19 to Jan. 20.
“It’s a great neighborhood. Nothing like this has happened since I’ve been here,” on the block, said Roxanne Hubbard, who has lived in the neighborhood for 19 years.
As a matter of policy, Chicago Board of Education officials refuse to confirm whether any child is a student at Chicago Public Schools because a policy on student identification passed by the board several years ago has never been implemented.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...130129_1_inaugural-events-small-park-students
15 Year Old Hadiya Pendleton Murdered In Chicago
Teen Attended President Obama’s Inauguration
<img src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/130130-hadiya-pendleton-11a.photoblog600.jpg" width="500">
The President should specifically address the deaths occurring in Chicago, particularly as I pointed out in the previous posts above, — given the fact that Chicago is his & the First lady’s home town — and his background as a community organizer and U.S. congressional candidate from the affected area.
Some of you peeps like the post above ↑ denigrated and ridiculed me for stating what I believe is the NECESSITY for Obama to say something, as we all know he would if white youngsters from a concentrated area were being gunned down.
<object width="420" height="245"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50645633&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc6160ca" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50645633&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
<object width="420" height="245"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50641859^140062^385285&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc9515aa" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50641859^140062^385285&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
According to Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin talking in the video directly above
<span style="background-color:yellow;"> 20% of the "crime" guns in Chicago come from ONE store in Riverdale Illinois!</span>
Why hasn't this store been infiltrated by federal agents posing as bulk gun buyers with undercover video recording the transactions?? Well maybe one reason is that the RepubliKlans in congress have blocked Obama from appointing a person to run the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms) bureau.
In fact the A.T.F. has no central database of gun transactions because the idea has been rejected by RepubliKlans in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment.
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
Teen Attended President Obama’s Inauguration
<img src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/130130-hadiya-pendleton-11a.photoblog600.jpg" width="500">
What are city officials doing, particularly the so-called Black leadership??...is there any Black leadership??....I don't know chitown. It's the presidents & first ladys "home town".....what special federal assistance is Obama dispensing to his former chief-of-staff Rahm to quell the violence??......Does he give a shit???.....What can he do????.....If Rmoney was president & you had a republiklan governor they would send in the national guard....Bottom line where are the Black men of Chicago???.....Farrakhan, Bobby Rush, Jesse Jackson & all the non-famous intelligent, cognizant, non-deranged, financially secure, Black men of Chicago.....do they give a fuck or are they too busy stacking benjamins and look at the dead people as just street trash???
Farrakhan is right!
Obama & his wife's home town's Black community is "on fire" and the President & the First Lady are 100% silent, 100%. These are some of the same streets he was "community organizing" on, and we see, Nothing, not even a drive-by press conference, a speech, a picture consoling the victims families, a promise of federal aid, or any acknowledgement that the elevated violence and killings is even taking place.
If this spate of violence was occurring in white Appalachia, lets say youth killings spawned by meth-lab gangs, the President would mention it and offer the locals some type of federal assistance. You peeps all know that's the truth.
The President should specifically address the deaths occurring in Chicago, particularly as I pointed out in the previous posts above, — given the fact that Chicago is his & the First lady’s home town — and his background as a community organizer and U.S. congressional candidate from the affected area.
Some of you peeps like the post above ↑ denigrated and ridiculed me for stating what I believe is the NECESSITY for Obama to say something, as we all know he would if white youngsters from a concentrated area were being gunned down.
<object width="420" height="245"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50645633&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc6160ca" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50645633&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
<object width="420" height="245"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=50641859^140062^385285&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc9515aa" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=50641859^140062^385285&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>
According to Illinois U.S. Senator Dick Durbin talking in the video directly above
<span style="background-color:yellow;"> 20% of the "crime" guns in Chicago come from ONE store in Riverdale Illinois!</span>
Why hasn't this store been infiltrated by federal agents posing as bulk gun buyers with undercover video recording the transactions?? Well maybe one reason is that the RepubliKlans in congress have blocked Obama from appointing a person to run the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms) bureau.
In fact the A.T.F. has no central database of gun transactions because the idea has been rejected by RepubliKlans in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment.
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
Last edited:
I'm not in favor of any new policy that centers around the 2nd amendment.
I view the problem as purely cultural and economic. Young unskilled black men have almost zero economic opportunity in Chicago.
In the thread about 70% unemployment rate among young black males, I posted a article about someone crying to cops because he got caught trying to rob someone. The victim only had $2 at the time and the 20 year old thief lamented how he "didn't want to go to jail over $2.". He was also trying to explain how he had been looking for work but couldn't find any.
Every poor person doesn't commit a crime, just the desperate ones that feels it's their only hope to eat and be better off.
That example didn't kill his victim or use a gun (as I remember it), but he was violent in the robbery. It's not a stretch to assume that someone intended to committ a petty crime because of their economic hopelessness, then that crime escalated to a murder.
The lack of economic opportunity affects the black males that haven't degenerated yet. There are so many black males doing nothing but standing on the street all day. They aren't selling drugs or doing anything wrong, they just don't have any options. These are the males that do petty kid shit like have a minor argument with one of the hopeless, then the hopeless comes and open fire on a group of random people to avenge petty kid shit.
I would think the liberal position shouldn't be to attack the existence of the gun (no matter the volume), but to address the lack of economic opportunity and sense of hopelessness in the community affected by perpetual violence. That same gun, in the hands of a young black male whose working and positive about his future, becomes a tool for defense instead of offense.
I view the problem as purely cultural and economic. Young unskilled black men have almost zero economic opportunity in Chicago.
In the thread about 70% unemployment rate among young black males, I posted a article about someone crying to cops because he got caught trying to rob someone. The victim only had $2 at the time and the 20 year old thief lamented how he "didn't want to go to jail over $2.". He was also trying to explain how he had been looking for work but couldn't find any.
Every poor person doesn't commit a crime, just the desperate ones that feels it's their only hope to eat and be better off.
That example didn't kill his victim or use a gun (as I remember it), but he was violent in the robbery. It's not a stretch to assume that someone intended to committ a petty crime because of their economic hopelessness, then that crime escalated to a murder.
The lack of economic opportunity affects the black males that haven't degenerated yet. There are so many black males doing nothing but standing on the street all day. They aren't selling drugs or doing anything wrong, they just don't have any options. These are the males that do petty kid shit like have a minor argument with one of the hopeless, then the hopeless comes and open fire on a group of random people to avenge petty kid shit.
I would think the liberal position shouldn't be to attack the existence of the gun (no matter the volume), but to address the lack of economic opportunity and sense of hopelessness in the community affected by perpetual violence. That same gun, in the hands of a young black male whose working and positive about his future, becomes a tool for defense instead of offense.
Step One: Get your head out of the "my side", "your side", "liberal postion", "conservative position", "Libertarian position" -- ad nauseum . . .
Step Two: Come to the realization that it doesn't matter how its framed: guns kill people or people with guns kill people -- either way -- there is a problem in this country with people being killed, needlessly, by GUNS !!! In places where there are no guns, or guns are limited, far fewer people die, by guns.
Yeah, yeah, I know; there are many factors, socio, eco, cultural, etc., factors that mitigate against easy comparisions of gun vs. less-gun countries and the gun death toll -- but there is no denying, people in THIS country are dying, needlessly . . . by gunfire.
Notwithstanding the above, I firmly agree that we need a plan to help the black and despondent in the Chicagoes all over America.
It should be apparent on "ALL SIDES" - that gun control and opportunity for black people are not mutually exclusive approaches.
Any ideas ? ? ?
.
That seems like a very odd thing to focus on considering I commented under a poster that proudly identifies with liberal label. If you want to associate with the No Label brand then fine, but that doesn't eliminate the existence of labels or people's desire to give themselves one.
There is no common ground between our perceptions, which is why the problem has not been solved and will not be solved.
I see a choice between focusing on an inanimate object with no volition and a human being that makes a choice to hurt someone.
I focus on the human being because I asked why "people in THIS country are dying, needlessly . . . by gunfire." No human action happens in a vacuum. I would rather solve the Why instead of the How. Focusing on the How only delays the eventual need to address the Why. Plus, the fact I don't view the How (availability of guns) as a problem.
There are only so many outcomes possible.
Let's say you banned all guns, banned some guns, or banned no guns but placed your preferred restrictions on ownership. How does that put the person in a better place? You solved the gun aspect completely, will a person who has hopelessness and next to no economic opportunity be able to raise kids properly, so those kids won't be trapped in inter-generational poverty? Will that person be able avoid the cycle of welfare to unemployment to no help to an inadequate job to welfare?
I see the social and economic cost to everyone continuing by focusing on the guns. Solve guns and that person is still in a shit position. Solve the reason Why and the gun issue and shit position is taken care of, which produces the best long term result.
You can promote the theory that guns and economic opportunity can be addressed at the time, but nothing in the current debate among politicians makes that likely.
I asked these questions at the start of this thread:
but no one seems to have any answers?
Not even those who live there
Seriously.
Why Chicago bleeds
The movement to just "get tough on crime" is growing in Chicago. Especially since a suspect for Hadiya Pendleton murder has a record. Unfortunately black people are jumping right on board and condemning more of their sons to permanent second-class status.
Addressing the economics of poverty driven crime is the least popular option.
Why Chicago bleeds
Blame lax enforcement for the fact that gun crimes plague the Second City even as they continue to fall in New York
BY JAMES WARREN / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2013, 4:07 AM
WASHINGTON — When it comes to guns, David Mamet peddles deceit just like the weary real estate salesmen in his brilliant “Glengarry Glen Ross,” being revived now on Broadway.
So if you need insight into firearm crime — especially the befuddling, little-understood difference between New York and Chicago — don’t trust one of America’s foremost playwrights on what’s going on in his native Chicago, or, for that matter, anyplace else.
The Pulitzer Prize winner recently wrote a pro-gun, anti-President Obama screed for Newsweek. It included a call for “more armed citizens in the schools”; an attack on Obama for having armed protection for his own family but not everybody else’s, and a claim that Chicago’s horrendous gun violence results from “the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.”
As Glengarry’s foul-mouthed Shelley Levene (Al Pacino, in the latest revival) or Ricky Roma might well say, “What the f---?!”
Mistruths course through Mamet’s polemic. He shows a deep misunderstanding of background checks and illicit gun markets. He cheap-shots Obama by claiming his daughters will receive lifetime Secret Service protection, arguing that if Obama can determine his family’s security needs, Mamet should determine his.
But a belief that giving everybody a gun would help Chicago’s violence problem is utterly blind to the deadly impact of more weapons being made more available to bad guys through theft and unregulated secondary market sales.
And Mamet, consistent with many others in the pro-gun camp, surely doesn’t understand the striking, unappreciated differences faced by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, on the one hand, and Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, on the other.
Second Amendment enthusiasts relish the fact that Chicago — a city that has on its books some of the nation’s toughest firearm laws — is rife with gun murders, notching more than 500 last year alone.
They use this as a recurring punchline to point out the supposed folly of tight restrictions on weapons possession.
But a comparison with New York City, where gun laws are equally tough and murders are sharply declining, proves that Chicago’s bloodshed has little to do with law-abiding citizens being prohibited from carrying guns. Rather, they’re about what we do with not-so-law-abiding citizens when we find them with guns.
In short, in New York City, the courts follow through with serious punishment for those who wield illegal weapons.
In Chicago, with precious few exceptions, they let those who brandish firearms go right back on the street.
Consider this stunning, largely unreported fact:
In 2012, Chicago police confiscated more than 7,400 guns, including 300 assault weapons. New York will disclose final figures next week to the City Council, but for the first six months of 2012, New York police confiscated 1,385 guns.
Double that and guess that the yearly total was somewhere around 2,800. Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest city, confiscated 4,700 guns.
When you adjust those figures for population size, a much-smaller Chicago takes about 8.5 guns off the street for every one the NYPD takes off the streets.
And it takes 2.5 guns off the street for every one Los Angeles takes off the street, according to numbers- crunching on confiscations done for me by the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
But while New York’s homicide number dropped to 414, or its lowest level in 40 years in 2012, Chicago’s spiked over the 500 mark, to 506, for the first time since 2008, during the same period. That was a 17% hike in homicides over 2011 in Chicago.
Imagine: In Chicago, far more guns are taken off the streets, yet far more havoc is caused by guns on the streets.
What’s going on?
One theory posited by some is that there’s just higher gun ownership in the Midwest. But that’s been debunked by research.
Then there’s the notion that Chicago’s gun laws are looser. But that’s not really true, either, with the National Rifle Association chronically critical of the city for being too restrictive.
Can one then say that the Emanuel-McCarthy team is less competent and caring about the problem than the Bloomberg-Kelly partnership?
That’s a stretch, even with criticism that the intense and supremely capable Emanuel (nicknamed “The Missile” by me, a moniker that’s stuck) can receive for budget-driven cuts in the police department; at times ad hoc and overly reactive strategies in dealing with violence; and not having an empowered City Hall aide like Bloomberg adviser John Feinblatt, who drives coordinated law enforcement strategies throughout all government agencies dealing with crime.
Plus, the Bronx-bred McCarthy, whose father was a police detective, helped implement many of New York’s seemingly winning policing strategies before moving to Newark and Chicago. He’s brought many of New York’s seemingly successful tactics to the Windy City.
A critical difference he confronts involves mandatory minimum sentences. In New York, it’s 3.5 years for carrying a loaded, illegal weapon. It’s three months in Chicago. For sure, that doesn’t mean everybody caught in New York goes to prison, given significant loopholes, but incarceration rates have jumped sharply for illegal gun possession.
Think about the message it sends to a teenager or young man who’s thinking about packing heat. Potentially go away for a few years in New York — or get a slap on the wrist in Chicago.
There is ample finger pointing in Chicago, but the bottom line reality is gun crimes aren’t treated anywhere near as seriously by prosecutors and the courts. In Chicago, one can be arrested for illegal gun possession but often not be charged with an offense or see your case tossed by a judge.
The Cook County court system, the nation’s largest integrated system, has more than two dozen specialty courts, including for prostitutes, drug abusers and veterans — but not for guns. New York once had such a court but doesn’t need it now, given its tough minimums.
Former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress personified the New York approach. In 2008, he brought a loaded gun into a club. It accidentally fired. He wound up serving time after pleading guilty to a felony weapon possession charge.
It’s close to inconceivable that a Chicago Bear would suffer the same fate in Chicago, where prosecution of gun crimes simply does not have the same priority.
Yes, the two cities are different places in other respects, as underscored by Jens Ludwig, who directs the University of Chicago Crime Lab. In part, he argues that Chicago crime reflects concentrations of poverty that dwarf those found in New York. He also maintains that the recession hit Chicago harder, with stiffer city budget cuts linked to higher crime rates.
But he also points to the courts for their priorities. They simply do not take illegal carries as seriously as they should.
Chicago must zero in on exactly where the breakdown is happening. If the cop on the beat is vigilant toward guns, what’s happening then? Is there a lack of desire to prosecute such crimes by prosecutors who are stretched thin? Or do prosecutors not quite trust many of the cases brought by police? And are judges looking the other way?
There is no real consensus, though it is crystal clear that the bad guys know the risk of bringing illegal guns into Chicago falls short of onerous, unlike in New York.
What is an often-articulated claim of Chicago’s comparative complexity comes from Patrick Fitzgerald, a Brooklyn native and renowned federal prosecutor who just ended a 10-year run as U.S. Attorney for the Chicago-based Northern District of Illinois.
He also prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and, as a Justice Department special counsel, prosecuted Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for perjury.
Fitzgerald subscribes to the belief that Chicago’s more numerous and deeply entrenched multi-generational gangs — said to number more than 100,000 members by credible estimates — play a role.
At minimum, he contends, they aggravate the problem when combined with drugs, too many guns, the lack of tough mandatory minimum sentences and, perhaps, less-demanding judges.
He has little sympathy for reflexive National Rifle Association responses to Chicago’s travail, namely that it somehow shows that gun control doesn’t work or that mere enforcement of existing laws is the solution.
“You can’t take seriously people who don’t want to know where the guns come from,” Fitzgerald, who is now in private practice, told me.
He might have added, as do other experts, that the NRA has consistently sought to weaken law enforcement’s ability to get guns off the street and even stymied attempts by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the roots of gun violence.
Studies and disputes continue on the historic New York crime drop and the persistent Chicago homicide rate. Only ideologues and the foolish would claim cold certainty.
But somewhere in the mix is a divergence in what happens in the two cities’ courtrooms. Ironically, there may be truth in “Faustus,” another Mamet play, when a character says this:
“Many remark justice is blind. Pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/chicago-bleeds-article-1.1259253
The movement to just "get tough on crime" is growing in Chicago. Especially since a suspect for Hadiya Pendleton murder has a record. Unfortunately black people are jumping right on board and condemning more of their sons to permanent second-class status.
Addressing the economics of poverty driven crime is the least popular option.
Why Chicago bleeds
Blame lax enforcement for the fact that gun crimes plague the Second City even as they continue to fall in New York
BY JAMES WARREN / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2013, 4:07 AM
WASHINGTON — When it comes to guns, David Mamet peddles deceit just like the weary real estate salesmen in his brilliant “Glengarry Glen Ross,” being revived now on Broadway.
So if you need insight into firearm crime — especially the befuddling, little-understood difference between New York and Chicago — don’t trust one of America’s foremost playwrights on what’s going on in his native Chicago, or, for that matter, anyplace else.
The Pulitzer Prize winner recently wrote a pro-gun, anti-President Obama screed for Newsweek. It included a call for “more armed citizens in the schools”; an attack on Obama for having armed protection for his own family but not everybody else’s, and a claim that Chicago’s horrendous gun violence results from “the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.”
As Glengarry’s foul-mouthed Shelley Levene (Al Pacino, in the latest revival) or Ricky Roma might well say, “What the f---?!”
Mistruths course through Mamet’s polemic. He shows a deep misunderstanding of background checks and illicit gun markets. He cheap-shots Obama by claiming his daughters will receive lifetime Secret Service protection, arguing that if Obama can determine his family’s security needs, Mamet should determine his.
But a belief that giving everybody a gun would help Chicago’s violence problem is utterly blind to the deadly impact of more weapons being made more available to bad guys through theft and unregulated secondary market sales.
And Mamet, consistent with many others in the pro-gun camp, surely doesn’t understand the striking, unappreciated differences faced by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, on the one hand, and Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, on the other.
Second Amendment enthusiasts relish the fact that Chicago — a city that has on its books some of the nation’s toughest firearm laws — is rife with gun murders, notching more than 500 last year alone.
They use this as a recurring punchline to point out the supposed folly of tight restrictions on weapons possession.
But a comparison with New York City, where gun laws are equally tough and murders are sharply declining, proves that Chicago’s bloodshed has little to do with law-abiding citizens being prohibited from carrying guns. Rather, they’re about what we do with not-so-law-abiding citizens when we find them with guns.
In short, in New York City, the courts follow through with serious punishment for those who wield illegal weapons.
In Chicago, with precious few exceptions, they let those who brandish firearms go right back on the street.
Consider this stunning, largely unreported fact:
In 2012, Chicago police confiscated more than 7,400 guns, including 300 assault weapons. New York will disclose final figures next week to the City Council, but for the first six months of 2012, New York police confiscated 1,385 guns.
Double that and guess that the yearly total was somewhere around 2,800. Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest city, confiscated 4,700 guns.
When you adjust those figures for population size, a much-smaller Chicago takes about 8.5 guns off the street for every one the NYPD takes off the streets.
And it takes 2.5 guns off the street for every one Los Angeles takes off the street, according to numbers- crunching on confiscations done for me by the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
But while New York’s homicide number dropped to 414, or its lowest level in 40 years in 2012, Chicago’s spiked over the 500 mark, to 506, for the first time since 2008, during the same period. That was a 17% hike in homicides over 2011 in Chicago.
Imagine: In Chicago, far more guns are taken off the streets, yet far more havoc is caused by guns on the streets.
What’s going on?
One theory posited by some is that there’s just higher gun ownership in the Midwest. But that’s been debunked by research.
Then there’s the notion that Chicago’s gun laws are looser. But that’s not really true, either, with the National Rifle Association chronically critical of the city for being too restrictive.
Can one then say that the Emanuel-McCarthy team is less competent and caring about the problem than the Bloomberg-Kelly partnership?
That’s a stretch, even with criticism that the intense and supremely capable Emanuel (nicknamed “The Missile” by me, a moniker that’s stuck) can receive for budget-driven cuts in the police department; at times ad hoc and overly reactive strategies in dealing with violence; and not having an empowered City Hall aide like Bloomberg adviser John Feinblatt, who drives coordinated law enforcement strategies throughout all government agencies dealing with crime.
Plus, the Bronx-bred McCarthy, whose father was a police detective, helped implement many of New York’s seemingly winning policing strategies before moving to Newark and Chicago. He’s brought many of New York’s seemingly successful tactics to the Windy City.
A critical difference he confronts involves mandatory minimum sentences. In New York, it’s 3.5 years for carrying a loaded, illegal weapon. It’s three months in Chicago. For sure, that doesn’t mean everybody caught in New York goes to prison, given significant loopholes, but incarceration rates have jumped sharply for illegal gun possession.
Think about the message it sends to a teenager or young man who’s thinking about packing heat. Potentially go away for a few years in New York — or get a slap on the wrist in Chicago.
There is ample finger pointing in Chicago, but the bottom line reality is gun crimes aren’t treated anywhere near as seriously by prosecutors and the courts. In Chicago, one can be arrested for illegal gun possession but often not be charged with an offense or see your case tossed by a judge.
The Cook County court system, the nation’s largest integrated system, has more than two dozen specialty courts, including for prostitutes, drug abusers and veterans — but not for guns. New York once had such a court but doesn’t need it now, given its tough minimums.
Former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress personified the New York approach. In 2008, he brought a loaded gun into a club. It accidentally fired. He wound up serving time after pleading guilty to a felony weapon possession charge.
It’s close to inconceivable that a Chicago Bear would suffer the same fate in Chicago, where prosecution of gun crimes simply does not have the same priority.
Yes, the two cities are different places in other respects, as underscored by Jens Ludwig, who directs the University of Chicago Crime Lab. In part, he argues that Chicago crime reflects concentrations of poverty that dwarf those found in New York. He also maintains that the recession hit Chicago harder, with stiffer city budget cuts linked to higher crime rates.
But he also points to the courts for their priorities. They simply do not take illegal carries as seriously as they should.
Chicago must zero in on exactly where the breakdown is happening. If the cop on the beat is vigilant toward guns, what’s happening then? Is there a lack of desire to prosecute such crimes by prosecutors who are stretched thin? Or do prosecutors not quite trust many of the cases brought by police? And are judges looking the other way?
There is no real consensus, though it is crystal clear that the bad guys know the risk of bringing illegal guns into Chicago falls short of onerous, unlike in New York.
What is an often-articulated claim of Chicago’s comparative complexity comes from Patrick Fitzgerald, a Brooklyn native and renowned federal prosecutor who just ended a 10-year run as U.S. Attorney for the Chicago-based Northern District of Illinois.
He also prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and, as a Justice Department special counsel, prosecuted Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for perjury.
Fitzgerald subscribes to the belief that Chicago’s more numerous and deeply entrenched multi-generational gangs — said to number more than 100,000 members by credible estimates — play a role.
At minimum, he contends, they aggravate the problem when combined with drugs, too many guns, the lack of tough mandatory minimum sentences and, perhaps, less-demanding judges.
He has little sympathy for reflexive National Rifle Association responses to Chicago’s travail, namely that it somehow shows that gun control doesn’t work or that mere enforcement of existing laws is the solution.
“You can’t take seriously people who don’t want to know where the guns come from,” Fitzgerald, who is now in private practice, told me.
He might have added, as do other experts, that the NRA has consistently sought to weaken law enforcement’s ability to get guns off the street and even stymied attempts by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the roots of gun violence.
Studies and disputes continue on the historic New York crime drop and the persistent Chicago homicide rate. Only ideologues and the foolish would claim cold certainty.
But somewhere in the mix is a divergence in what happens in the two cities’ courtrooms. Ironically, there may be truth in “Faustus,” another Mamet play, when a character says this:
“Many remark justice is blind. Pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/chicago-bleeds-article-1.1259253
I was reading this article, Minimum wage: End it, don't mend it, in the Detroit News this morning which seems to support your idea that the minimum wage drives fewer jobs. If the minimum is driving down the number of jobs, if it is eliminated, (1) would that not drive down wages for those with "little hope of making this better for themselves" and (2) prompt an increase in the lowered-wage jobs (and, thereby, just increase the number of those with little hope)???
I'm sure you must have thought of it, so, how do you prevent exascerbating proverty by eliminating the minimum wage for those already near destitute, with it ???
.
The Detroit News endorsed Mitt RMoney in 2012, even though RMoney told the Detroit auto industry to 'drop dead'. Without minimum wage laws, a country reverts back to a feudal system; millions of serfs & slaves and at most a dozen oligarch families controlling 99% of the wealth.
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://i.minus.com/i7PiSKhrBbm9m.jpg" align="right"></div>
We had such a system in the U.S. from inception up until the 1930's. The owners of the large slave plantations of the South which each had hundreds of slaves; such families which only numbered less than 20, controlled the slaveocracy economy of the South. Cotton was 'King'. Mississippi was the "Wall street" of America pre 1865.
Post the civil war as the industrial revolution (steel making, railroads, oil, assembly line factories, etc.) reinvented the American economy from agricultural to industrial, the oligarchs of that time , Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Mellon, etc. paid their European immigrant workers as little as possible. Many Rockefeller workers received no "real money" legal tender, for their work. Oligarchs like Rockefeller would "pay" their workers with something called 'scrip' which was company issued coupons which could only be redeemed for lifes essentials (food, clothing, etc.) at the company owned store. When the white workers attempted to revolt and break from this neo-slavery system & form a union, the owners of these companies, Rockefeller, Mellon, etc. hired private gun totting guards and shot and killed many workers, without any repercussions or penalty from any power.
This is the logical conclusion of "private industry" having NO regulation from a Government power. This is the 'nirvana' that Ayn Rand politicos like Paul Ryan & Marco Rubio and oligarchs like the Koch brothers want the country to revert back to.
Henry Ford, despite the fact that he was a racist & a close friend and admirer of Adolph Hitler understood that he as a fabulously wealthy oligarch could not sustain his position if the wages he paid his workers only allowed them to crawl around in the mud seeking scraps of food and strips of clothing.
Before there were minimum wage laws in the U.S. Ford made the decision to TRIPLE his workers wages in 1913. Ford's fellow oligarchs were outraged. They engaged in legal litigation in an attempt to stop his wage increase; imagine that. Other companies had to match the Ford wage increase.
Then as now 67% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is consumer spending. The higher wages all the auto companies now paid circulated throughout the entire greater Detroit area, creating what became one of the U.S. major cities. In economics it's called the "velocity of circulation of money". The workers higher wages boosted the entire area, the department stores, the home builders, the grocery stores, and of course the auto companies as more people could afford to buy cars. So let's recap what happened here. Ford's huge pile of wealth initially diminished when he tripled his workers pay but the ensuing surge in total local demand exponentially increased his pile of wealth and the pile of wealth of his competitors (General Motors, Chrysler) who had gone to court to block what they saw as his insane decision to triple wages.
Today let's look at Wal-Mart. The Walmart heirs the Waltons are sitting on a combined pile of wealth that exceeds $100,000,000,000 ($100 Billion). The waltons employees at walmart, 90% earn poverty wages, they are all on government paid for 'food stamps' and government paid for 'Medicaid'. The waltons pay two money center banks, Chase & Bank Of America money, that's right they don't get interest on billions of dollars, in order to warehouse the money; they are getting negative interest on their money.
Imagine the effect if Wal-Mart doubled their wages from $9.00 an hour to $18.00? Target and the others would have to follow suit. The $100,000,000,000 Walton pile of money would temporarily decline, but in the long run the massive demand created by the "velocity of circulation of money" would end the U.S. economic depression that we are still in the grip of. Just as in 1913 when shareholders and competitors sued Ford, I'm positive that numerous lawsuits would be launched against Wal-Mart. The RepubliKlans would hold congressional hearings declaring the waltons as Un-American, communist, socialist dupes. The same charges were hurled at Hitler loving Henry Ford in 1913. For those of you who read articles more than 300 words, a short recap of what Henry Ford's dramatic increase in wages did in 1913 is HERE
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
Re: Report Details All 506 Chicago Murders From 2012
Thanks for the post, but I disagree with the conclusions for many reasons.
1. Rights are not subject to public opinion. They exist to protect the "minority from the tyranny of the majority". Abolition/Suffrage/Civil RIghts were all highly unpopular among the masses at one time. They continued partially because of the rights that the citizens had.
2. Gun violence is a just about always a means, not an end. Most gun violence occurs in this country currently for the same reason we had our last round of major gun control laws. The drug game. Machine guns were legal until prohibition, as well as people owning them. As long as we have prohibition, the business disputes that arise will be more likely settled through force of arms than other means of dispute resolution.
3. We have in large measure abandoned reasoning in favor of feeling. We look to feel good instead of whats reasonable. That is coming throught in our kids. They can't think or reason through thier emotions, so they act out more. There is much less impulse control.
4. Government and police corruption. With so many obvious and unpunished acts of corruption being shown, why should the little guy, much less the already disadvantaged, give a single fuck about another, or how they act.
5. The gun control measures circulating now have little bearing on the facts. Adam Lanza's mother was a clean individual, Jared Loughner would still be able to get his gun, Dylan Kliebold would still be able to steal from his Grandfather, and still nobody in power would give a shit about what's happening in Chicago.
The only net effect of these laws would be the limiting of the lawful because of the unlawful. That's the operating definition of corruption of blood, which is prohibited by the constitution.
Thanks for the post, but I disagree with the conclusions for many reasons.
1. Rights are not subject to public opinion. They exist to protect the "minority from the tyranny of the majority". Abolition/Suffrage/Civil RIghts were all highly unpopular among the masses at one time. They continued partially because of the rights that the citizens had.
2. Gun violence is a just about always a means, not an end. Most gun violence occurs in this country currently for the same reason we had our last round of major gun control laws. The drug game. Machine guns were legal until prohibition, as well as people owning them. As long as we have prohibition, the business disputes that arise will be more likely settled through force of arms than other means of dispute resolution.
3. We have in large measure abandoned reasoning in favor of feeling. We look to feel good instead of whats reasonable. That is coming throught in our kids. They can't think or reason through thier emotions, so they act out more. There is much less impulse control.
4. Government and police corruption. With so many obvious and unpunished acts of corruption being shown, why should the little guy, much less the already disadvantaged, give a single fuck about another, or how they act.
5. The gun control measures circulating now have little bearing on the facts. Adam Lanza's mother was a clean individual, Jared Loughner would still be able to get his gun, Dylan Kliebold would still be able to steal from his Grandfather, and still nobody in power would give a shit about what's happening in Chicago.
The only net effect of these laws would be the limiting of the lawful because of the unlawful. That's the operating definition of corruption of blood, which is prohibited by the constitution.
Last edited:
You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
The article you linked is a good example of the political debate. I would say all the good and bad things the article cited, related to the minimum wage as opposed to the alternatives the article endorsed, were mostly accurate. However, it's all unrealistic because it doesn't acknowledge scale.
The magnitude of the wage change is what affects the real world. If the wage rises or falls one penny, I don't think any owner is rethinking his business model or any worker is suddenly starving.
I mentioned this when the board was discussing the last tax increase. A four percentage point increase in the highest marginal rate isn't likely to make things better or worse. When people cite other instances of rate movements, they are being selective. When people cite a rate decrease as pro-growth they often cite the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts where the magnitude was from about 90% to 70% and about 70% to 50% respectively. There isn't alot of evidence saying a three point drop matters. On the flip side, people who cite tax increase as good don't cite large jumps, they cite small increments. Both sides cherry pick to claim general truths. Economic truths are agreed upon by economist using the assumption that every other aspect of life stops and is held constant, then what if you changed the marginal rate. It may be good but the more complicated life is, the larger the change needs to be to make the truth evident. It's still true regardless but it won't be evident.
The minimum wage is just as dependent on magnitude. Politicians generally concede this which is why they phase in the increase over a time frame based on the magnitude. So when articles like the Detroit is published they are being overly optimistic and unnecessarily gloomy at the same time.
The following is another reason why people hate economist. In regards to your first point, it may or may not drive down the wage level of low-wage workers, or the wage level may stay the same for current workers because of a marketing backlash but fall a lot for new workers. If the minimum wage was eliminated, by my own logic, the results would be dramatic but it could take as many shapes as there are businesses affected. Needless to say, i don't believe any of those shapes deter from the merits of eliminating the minimum wage.
Your second point is actually the main benefit I want to achieve. The immediate clarification being that I describe the hopeless as people who, by their own judgement, don't see their situation as ever changing. Someone poor is not without hope by default. My experience is the working poor are often hustling risk-takers, more so than the middle class folks I know, once again anecdotally. I say that's a good thing because America was built by poor people who enjoyed a more free system of class mobility. So yes, I hope and the empirical evidence supports the notion that low-wage employment will increase if you eliminate the wage floor.
As a technical note, it should be stressed, economics is not finance. Muckraker described these definitional relationships in his post below your own. He stressed material outcomes and zero-sum gains/losses. Economics is a social science measuring human behavior, which means different actions have different probability associated with them and none of them has to happen. Every outcome's probability will be low if the magnitude is low. Said another way, the magnitude of good and bad results will be positively correlated with the magnitude of the wage change.
Now for the reason I advocate an elimination of the minimum wage. I can't stress this enough, I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE POOR. They'll be fine if you leave them alone. If you also believe like I do that the poor built America through their freedom of actions moving them along the class structure, then you should not feel the need to take care of them.
If you get rid of the minimum wage, the poor will likely stay poor or make it just barely out of poverty, or a tail-end outcome great wealth could occur. I don't care about that, they'll be fine.
The prize I focus on is eliminating inter-generational poverty. The history of various ethnic groups in this country is the working-poor's children and grandchildren do not end up worse than their parents. American descendants of slaves are different since they didn't have the same political rights as the average poor ethnic group. Inter-generational poverty is a new phenomenon is American history and I blame the minimum wage which eliminated the flexibility of poor and unskilled labor to choose their own future.
People working is also more important than their wage because of the working class values that will be transferred to the next generational. That's why poor people won't be without hope with low wages because they will have a credible belief that their kids will be better off. It's also another reason economics isn't finance and economics is a social science. Intangible benefits are a legitimate value in economics. They are hard to measure quantitatively but not qualitatively. Inheriting working class values is desirable just like a monetary inheritance.
My focus is not to eliminate the concept of poverty or make people rich. I want to eliminate the guarantee of poverty which exist for the poor children of America, whether it's Chicago or the Appalachians.
Last edited:
If the theater is on fire, you do. In some states, it would be a crime not to say there is a fire. It's known as a good samaritan law.
The United States is a criminal mafia state. If you don't want the government or people messing you, you will need to arm yourself to protect your property and person.
In a criminal mafia state, the government or some individuals can do whatever it wants to you without being held accountable. The laws means very little to these bureaucrats or ruling elite. They will fabric reasons to spy on you, steal your wealth through collusion/wage fixing, or physically harm you.
The police exists in this mafia state to protect people or institutions that have wealth from people that don't have anything. The gun control debate never factors in that we have criminals in many powerful institutions that can pose a threat to you.
For example, a couple of police departments such as the LAPD were caught planting evidence. If the police show up to arrest me for evidence that planted by them, they have lost any legal protections of being a police officer. It would be like somebody trying to grab me off the street that was not a cop, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force.
In a criminal mafia state, the government or some individuals can do whatever it wants to you without being held accountable. The laws means very little to these bureaucrats or ruling elite. They will fabric reasons to spy on you, steal your wealth through collusion/wage fixing, or physically harm you.
The police exists in this mafia state to protect people or institutions that have wealth from people that don't have anything. The gun control debate never factors in that we have criminals in many powerful institutions that can pose a threat to you.
For example, a couple of police departments such as the LAPD were caught planting evidence. If the police show up to arrest me for evidence that planted by them, they have lost any legal protections of being a police officer. It would be like somebody trying to grab me off the street that was not a cop, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force.
Last edited:
I would disagree with your post that you have a right to defend yourself, or police have lost "any legal protections" in the circumstance you described. Politicians and cops protect themselves from the cost of being wrong.
If you changed the wording to "you have a moral right to defend yourself with deadly force," then it would be accurate. However, most laws seems designed to protect the government against the citizens, so legality is almost always on the side of government while morality is almost always on the side of the governed.
And when it comes to legality and morality in America, the motto is never shall the two mix.
I believe that's going to be inaccurate. What "Moral Code" gives one the "moral right to defend [one's]self with deadly force" ??? And, which state has adopted such a "Moral Code" ???
.
The moral code that people should be able to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else. That's freedom. Free from coercion or force applied to you if you didn't violate that rule for someone else first.
The initiation of force is not less bad just because it's the government pulling the trigger.
A man facing death from a criminal has a moral right to defend himself. The law says he can't do it if the initiator is the government.
And I've pointed it out multiple times when the board has talked about freedom. Whether its from explicit or implicit uses of force, there has never been a free person that has ever existed on this earth. No state has ever weighed morality greater than its desire to hold power. Maybe never will, but that's by people's choice.
You see, the trouble with that moral code is its undefined, largely undetermined and leaves to the so-called "Moral" to decide for each of themselves what is moral and what is not.
Is what is "Moral" based upon -- God's law?
Do Agnostics have a say in what is moral?
Do the Atheist get a say in this?
Are the Morals of Libertarians different from those of Republicans, from Democrats, from Independents.?
What is the definition of arbitrary and capricious? - a law which fails to apprise those subject to it of its requiements so that each will know what conduct would be violative of that law?
.
I don't see why this moral code would be more impractical to define through the process of lawmaking than the current moral code.
Even if you still think it would be unworkable to define explicitly by law, so what? The average person trying to figure it out would be able to do so as they saw fit as long as they didn't use the threat of force along the way. Laws could ultimately be designed around the results of individuals effort.
I consider it an earthly code.
Yes.
Yes.
Probably.
As I mentioned above, everyone can define the morality, as it applies to their life, as they see fit. I don't view it as inconsistent with God, atheist, the Constitution, or currently existing political labels. Exercise your values and pursue your goals with like-minded individuals, while being subject to the limitation of not using explicit force on people who disagree or implicit force through the government.What is the definition of arbitrary and capricious? - a law which fails to apprise those subject to it of its requiements so that each will know what conduct would be violative of that law?
Why is that arbitrary or capricious? If the initiation of force is outlawed, then people can only depend on their reasoning. No decision would be arbitrary or capricious because you can't fall back on lobbying or voting more for yourself and less for others.
Then Define it.
Are you just saying this to counter what I said; or, are you serious
What is the average person ??? (how does the average person define, average person; and, what happens when the average person A defines the law differently from the person formerly known as Average Person B, whom A just terminated over that "average semantical difference") ???
How would one average person know what is in the head of another average person, especially when each average person is free to define what is average as he/she sees fit ??? (and you don't find that in the least bit to be simply, chaotic -- or -- is that just average) ???
We're not just talking live your life here; we're talking live-your-life with individuals having the ability to define for themselves what is or isn't the law. That means, necessarily, that in a city of 1 million people, there could be 1 million variations of what constitutes self defense. Now, I am having extreme difficulty believing that you don't see the extreme difficulty such an extreme position poses
Its arbitrary and capricious when a person or government can make up the rules on-the-fly, changing them at-will or on-a-whim to make what was permissible one second - - punishable by death the next second -- as some so-called average person just deemed your conduct suddenly impermissible and you, terminable.
.
I actually don't understand where you're coming from to argue this. You believe a moral code where the only rule is not to be the initiator of force will lead to rampant initiations of force. Self-defense laws are already on the books, why would think this is the unworkable part of the code?Then Define it.
Are you just saying this to counter what I said; or, are you serious
What is the average person ??? (how does the average person define, average person; and, what happens when the average person A defines the law differently from the person formerly known as Average Person B, whom A just terminated over that "average semantical difference") ???
How would one average person know what is in the head of another average person, especially when each average person is free to define what is average as he/she sees fit ??? (and you don't find that in the least bit to be simply, chaotic -- or -- is that just average) ???
We're not just talking live your life here; we're talking live-your-life with individuals having the ability to define for themselves what is or isn't the law. That means, necessarily, that in a city of 1 million people, there could be 1 million variations of what constitutes self defense. Now, I am having extreme difficulty believing that you don't see the extreme difficulty such an extreme position poses
Its arbitrary and capricious when a person or government can make up the rules on-the-fly, changing them at-will or on-a-whim to make what was permissible one second - - punishable by death the next second -- as some so-called average person just deemed your conduct suddenly impermissible and you, terminable.
.
You make references to disputes (presumably honest, good faith disputes) between people leading to violence. What is it about the moral code I stated that leads to courts not existing? You act like I'm supposed to name every law that will be applicable under this code as if lawmakers and the courts magically disappears.
You're implying that anarchy is the result of this code. The main change would be, at the very least, government will have to add a separation of economic and state clause to their activity. I don't see the the average person fearing a moral code like I stated. I see lobbyist and lawmakers alot poorer than they are now. The natural results of a code like this is a limited government. Remember this exchange started as a critique of government, and this is the solution I proposed, making the initiation of force illegal.
We obviously have different perspectives, I don't see the bulk of the immoral activity in this country coming from individuals but instead from the government.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KdMyasDMWSw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not to defend Henry Ford, but:
No doubt Ford was antisemitic, but he seem to like and admired Black folk. He hired Black workers and viewed them as hard and reliable workers. George Washington Carver was among is circle of elite. I'm not saying he was a champion of civil rights and equality or excusing is racism toward Jews, but that is is record.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ioTmVSpdjkE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Harper High School, Part One
Be aware - Each link connects to a web page with embedded audio that may or may not autoplay.
Harper High School, Part One
FEB 15, 2013
We spent five months at Harper High School in Chicago, where last year alone 29 current and recent students were shot. 29. We went to get a sense of what it means to live in the midst of all this gun violence, how teens and adults navigate a world of funerals and Homecoming dances.
Be aware - Each link connects to a web page with embedded audio that may or may not autoplay.
Harper High School, Part One
FEB 15, 2013
We spent five months at Harper High School in Chicago, where last year alone 29 current and recent students were shot. 29. We went to get a sense of what it means to live in the midst of all this gun violence, how teens and adults navigate a world of funerals and Homecoming dances.
PROLOGUE
At the first day assembly, the freshman seem confused and nervous while the seniors are boisterous and confident. It's exactly the kind of first day stuff you'd expect at any school. Until Harper Principal Leonetta Sanders calls for a moment of silence to honor the students Harper has lost in the last year. Then Harper doesn't seem so ordinary. In the clean and orderly halls of Harper, we meet the staff as they shepherd the students through new schedules and rules while they also try to reassure parents about the frightening rise in shootings in the neighborhood. (7 minutes)
ACT ONE - Rules to Live By.
So many of the shootings in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago, the neighborhood where Harper High sits, are characterized as "gang-related." Often, the implication is that gang-related means there is a reason to the shooting — huge, established gangs shooting it out over drug territory. Gang-related often implies you must've deserved it, a certain level of 'what goes around comes around.' Reporter Linda Lutton talks to dozens of Harper students who say adults don't understand that that's not the way it works. Gangs don't operate the way they used to. (13 minutes)
ACT TWO - A Tiny Office on the Second Floor.
Reporter Alex Kotlowitz spends time in the social work office, where the effects of gun violence are most often apparent. Early on in the year, social worker Crystal Smith spends time with a junior named Devonte, talking him through his grief and guilt after Devonte accidentally shot and killed his 14 year old brother last year. Crystal also meets with Devonte's mother, who has some understandably confused feelings towards Devonte. (16 minutes)
ACT THREE - Game Day.
By early October, it's been pretty quiet at Harper, as far as gun violence goes. But on the day before the homecoming game, during a pep rally, a senior named Damoni who is both on the football team and nominated for Homecoming King, gets word that a good friend of his, James, has been shot. James is also a former Harper student with many ties to the school. Reporter Ben Calhoun follows Principal Sanders and the rest of the Harper staff as they jump into action and try to ward off more violence, keep the students safe and grapple with whether they need to cancel the Harper High School Homecoming. (18 minutes)
At the first day assembly, the freshman seem confused and nervous while the seniors are boisterous and confident. It's exactly the kind of first day stuff you'd expect at any school. Until Harper Principal Leonetta Sanders calls for a moment of silence to honor the students Harper has lost in the last year. Then Harper doesn't seem so ordinary. In the clean and orderly halls of Harper, we meet the staff as they shepherd the students through new schedules and rules while they also try to reassure parents about the frightening rise in shootings in the neighborhood. (7 minutes)
ACT ONE - Rules to Live By.
So many of the shootings in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago, the neighborhood where Harper High sits, are characterized as "gang-related." Often, the implication is that gang-related means there is a reason to the shooting — huge, established gangs shooting it out over drug territory. Gang-related often implies you must've deserved it, a certain level of 'what goes around comes around.' Reporter Linda Lutton talks to dozens of Harper students who say adults don't understand that that's not the way it works. Gangs don't operate the way they used to. (13 minutes)
ACT TWO - A Tiny Office on the Second Floor.
Reporter Alex Kotlowitz spends time in the social work office, where the effects of gun violence are most often apparent. Early on in the year, social worker Crystal Smith spends time with a junior named Devonte, talking him through his grief and guilt after Devonte accidentally shot and killed his 14 year old brother last year. Crystal also meets with Devonte's mother, who has some understandably confused feelings towards Devonte. (16 minutes)
ACT THREE - Game Day.
By early October, it's been pretty quiet at Harper, as far as gun violence goes. But on the day before the homecoming game, during a pep rally, a senior named Damoni who is both on the football team and nominated for Homecoming King, gets word that a good friend of his, James, has been shot. James is also a former Harper student with many ties to the school. Reporter Ben Calhoun follows Principal Sanders and the rest of the Harper staff as they jump into action and try to ward off more violence, keep the students safe and grapple with whether they need to cancel the Harper High School Homecoming. (18 minutes)
Harper High School, Part Two
Be aware - Each link connects to a web page with embedded audio that may or may not autoplay.
Harper High School, Part Two
FEB 22, 2013
We pick up where we left off last week in our second hour from Harper High School in Chicago. We find out if a shooting in the neighborhood will derail the school's Homecoming game and dance. We hear the origin story of one of Harper's gangs. And we ask a group of teenagers: where do you get your guns?
Be aware - Each link connects to a web page with embedded audio that may or may not autoplay.
Harper High School, Part Two
FEB 22, 2013
We pick up where we left off last week in our second hour from Harper High School in Chicago. We find out if a shooting in the neighborhood will derail the school's Homecoming game and dance. We hear the origin story of one of Harper's gangs. And we ask a group of teenagers: where do you get your guns?
PROLOGUE
Principal Leonetta Sanders is worried that in the wake of a recent shooting, some of her students at Harper might be in danger of retaliatory violence. The threat is so real, she's considering canceling the school's Homecoming football game and dance. The possibility of canceling is heartbreaking to her, though, as all she wants is to give her students one normal high school dance. On Homecoming day, she gathers her staff to announce that there has been word of more shooting in the neighborhood. (5 minutes)
ACT ONE - The Eyewitness.
Most murders in Chicago happen in public places — parks, alleyways, cars. Scores of Harper students will tell you they've actually seen someone shot. Reporter Alex Kotlowitz talks with a junior named Thomas, who has seen more than his fair share. Thomas meets with his social worker, Anita Stewart, and tries to explain what it feels like to hold all of these images — and feelings — inside of him. He worries he can't hold on to them much longer. (10 minutes)
ACT TWO - Your Name Written On Me.
Reporter Ben Calhoun tells the story of Terrance Green, a 16-year-old who was killed three years ago but is still an iconic presence at Harper. Ben asks Terrance's dad and his best friend: Why did this one kid's death lead to slickly produced songs, tribute videos, a gang in his name, assault rifles on the street and an entire remapping of the violence in the area around Harper High School? (15 minutes)
ACT THREE - Get Your Gun.
Chicago has strict gun laws but, obviously, teenagers are somehow getting their hands on guns. Lots of guns. We've all heard about straw purchasers and gun shows but 15-year-olds aren't spending hundreds of dollars to buy guns, or exploiting gun show loopholes. Reporter Linda Lutton gathers together a group of Harper boys and asks them: where do you get your guns? They tell her not only where they get them, but where they keep them, too. (6 minutes)
ACT FOUR - Devonte, Part Two.
In the first hour of our Harper High School shows, Alex Kotlowitz talked to a junior named Devonte who a year earlier had accidentally shot and killed his 14-year-old brother. Devonte was forming a strong relationship with Crystal Smith, one of the social workers, and beginning to come to terms with both his grief and guilt. Alex checks back in with Devonte and finds out that his life has taken some troubling turns. (8 minutes)
ACT FIVE - Reverse Turnaround Backflip.
Late in the semester, Principal Sanders takes a look at her budget. It doesn't look good. She talks with Ben Calhoun about what is going to change — and who won't be at Harper — next year. (7 minutes)
ACT SIX - We Are Harper High School.
Harper High School isn't alone. (3 minutes)
Principal Leonetta Sanders is worried that in the wake of a recent shooting, some of her students at Harper might be in danger of retaliatory violence. The threat is so real, she's considering canceling the school's Homecoming football game and dance. The possibility of canceling is heartbreaking to her, though, as all she wants is to give her students one normal high school dance. On Homecoming day, she gathers her staff to announce that there has been word of more shooting in the neighborhood. (5 minutes)
ACT ONE - The Eyewitness.
Most murders in Chicago happen in public places — parks, alleyways, cars. Scores of Harper students will tell you they've actually seen someone shot. Reporter Alex Kotlowitz talks with a junior named Thomas, who has seen more than his fair share. Thomas meets with his social worker, Anita Stewart, and tries to explain what it feels like to hold all of these images — and feelings — inside of him. He worries he can't hold on to them much longer. (10 minutes)
ACT TWO - Your Name Written On Me.
Reporter Ben Calhoun tells the story of Terrance Green, a 16-year-old who was killed three years ago but is still an iconic presence at Harper. Ben asks Terrance's dad and his best friend: Why did this one kid's death lead to slickly produced songs, tribute videos, a gang in his name, assault rifles on the street and an entire remapping of the violence in the area around Harper High School? (15 minutes)
ACT THREE - Get Your Gun.
Chicago has strict gun laws but, obviously, teenagers are somehow getting their hands on guns. Lots of guns. We've all heard about straw purchasers and gun shows but 15-year-olds aren't spending hundreds of dollars to buy guns, or exploiting gun show loopholes. Reporter Linda Lutton gathers together a group of Harper boys and asks them: where do you get your guns? They tell her not only where they get them, but where they keep them, too. (6 minutes)
ACT FOUR - Devonte, Part Two.
In the first hour of our Harper High School shows, Alex Kotlowitz talked to a junior named Devonte who a year earlier had accidentally shot and killed his 14-year-old brother. Devonte was forming a strong relationship with Crystal Smith, one of the social workers, and beginning to come to terms with both his grief and guilt. Alex checks back in with Devonte and finds out that his life has taken some troubling turns. (8 minutes)
ACT FIVE - Reverse Turnaround Backflip.
Late in the semester, Principal Sanders takes a look at her budget. It doesn't look good. She talks with Ben Calhoun about what is going to change — and who won't be at Harper — next year. (7 minutes)
ACT SIX - We Are Harper High School.
Harper High School isn't alone. (3 minutes)
Making gun trafficking a federal crime passed committee yesterday but only got one Republican vote.
For real? How is this controversial? I thought they wanted laws that only affected "bad guys".
For real? How is this controversial? I thought they wanted laws that only affected "bad guys".
Laws that would only affect "bad guys"? - why, that would be unconstitutional U.D.
Enacting laws that only apply to Democrats would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
.
Laws that would only affect "bad guys"? - why, that would be unconstitutional U.D.
Enacting laws that only apply to Democrats would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
.
What gave you that impression?
You parrotting that back ad nauseum.
And what does that have to do with Republicans?
Chicago baby, shot 5 times
with father during a diaper change, dies
In Chicago, certain names have become synonymous with a specific type of tragedy for girls, which can be recalled with bleak and brief synopsis:
Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old majorette, shot in the back after coming home from President Obama's inauguration;
Janay McFarlane, 18, gunned down while walking with friends -- her 14-year-old sister had just heard the president give a speech about gun violence.
Janay McFarlane, 18, gunned down while walking with friends -- her 14-year-old sister had just heard the president give a speech about gun violence.
Now there is another name to add.
Six-month-old Jonylah Watkins died at a hospital Tuesday morning after being shot while getting her diaper changed by her father, who was shot too.
She is survived by her 20-year old mother -- who had once been shot in the leg while eight months' pregnant -- and her father, Jonathan Watkins, 29, who remained in the hospital in serious condition, officials said.
"This is another tragedy, because no child, and certainly not an infant, should be the victim of gang violence," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said at a televised news conference. "Which, by the way, at this point, although there's a lot of angles that we're pursuing, there are very strong gang overtones to this particular event."
Police said Watkins had parked his van on the street to change his daughter's diaper when the gunman approached from behind and fired several shots into the van. The shooter then ran through an empty lot and into a blue minivan, speeding away.
"Based on the ballistics and the position of the father and the baby in the car, he was shooting at the father," McCarthy said.
He added, "Right now, we don't have one real good witness at this point."
The death comes a day after McCarthy started a push for a "broken windows" law-enforcement strategy in Chicago that would punish more small crimes in the hope that the effort will prevent bigger crimes -- the idea being that allowing just one broken window will lead to many more broken windows.
According to the latest available mortality data kept by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 20,033 women and girls were killed in gun homicides between 2000 and 2010, with gun homicides against women at its lowest rate in 2010.
Black women and girls were 3-1/2 times more likely to have been killed in a shooting than white females, according to the data, with their deaths most likely coming in their 20s.
SOURCE: L.A. TIMES
Last edited:
Similar threads
