|
Post by pubtv on Jan 10, 2009 20:07:01 GMT
Teens in Dunbar HS shooting recovering January 10, 2009 1:26 PM At least one of the five teenagers who were wounded in a drive-by shooting outside Dunbar High School on the South Side Friday night remained hospitalized this morning, Chicago police said. Authorities have said the shooting was gang-related and that they don't believe any of the victims attended Dunbar. The gunshots rang out from a passing sport-utility vehicle about 8 p.m. as a high school basketball game was underway at the gym in Dunbar, 3000 S. Martin Luther King Dr. "These people drove up and fired into the crowd," Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis said Friday night news conference. Officials declined to describe the vehicle they were searching for, or the assailants. "We've got some positive leads," Weis said. No one had been arrested as of this morning. Witnesses on the scene described a gory scene, with victims of the shooting on the ground bleeding, some near the school, others at a nearby bus stop. A sixth person, a girl, was injured in a fall during the melee and was taken to a hospital to be looked at. "The people who got shot, they were just lying on the ground," said Tierra Buile, 16, a Dunbar sophomore, who saw two male victims shot in their legs in front of the school. The shooting victims, all males between 15 and 18, were believed to be in stable condition, authorities said. Three were taken in serious-to-critical condition to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, University of Chicago Comer's Children's Hospital and Stroger Hospital, said Eve Rodriguez, a Fire Department spokeswoman. Two others were taken in fair-to-serious condition to Mercy Hospital. Late Friday, police said Stoger Hospital doctors were treating a 15-year-old youth in serious but stable condition with multiple gunshot wounds. This morning, at least one of the victims remained hospitalized while the rest had been treated and released, according to police. "We do not believe that any of the victims were students at the school," said Monique Bond, a police spokeswoman. One Dunbar student described a frightening scene outside her Bronzeville neighborhood school as she saw a silver truck pull up to a bus stop at 29th Street and King Drive. Shaneisha Turman, 15, a freshman at Dunbar, said she was standing in the doorway of the gym when she saw the occupants of the truck pretend to shoot and then "they really started shooting." She said she saw two people fall wounded. People were shouting, "They're shooting!" Turman said. "It was a lot of people shouting and running." Jason Moore, 18, said the game against Hope College Prep High School was tied in double overtime when shots were heard outside. School officials immediately canceled the game. "We heard the bullets," Moore, who graduated from Dunbar last year, said. "We heard the shots." Investigators are reviewing footage from the school's surveillance system, said Chicago Public School security head Andres Durbak. --Kristen Kridel, Andrew L. Wang www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/....igh-school.html
|
|
|
Post by whitedove on Jan 10, 2009 20:12:44 GMT
That's bad when you can't even go to a basketball game, and feel safe!
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2009 18:37:23 GMT
A gun culture is a gun culture. I know that many - most? - Americans will defend to their last breathe the 'right to bear arms' (while conveniently failing to discuss the 'as part of a militia' bit) and it's your nation, your right to have guns.
Couple that with the nihilism of the Chicago gangs, and things like this happen.
I went to a seminar earlier this year to listen to guys who are working with the gangs in Chicago and trying to halt the culture of violence and nihilism were presenting. Fascinating stuff. And it seems that some of the work they're doing is having a positive effect, but they also explained the traditions and histories of some of the gangs and helped us to see how entrenched they are.
We have 'gangs' here in Glasgow. We don't have a gun culture, so the murders and attacks are usually sharp instruments. But the 'gangs' are just groups of lads from the same streets. They don't have recognised 'colours' and 'uniforms' and the whole paramilitary sub-structures that some of the Chicago gangs seem to have.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 18:58:51 GMT
A gun culture is a gun culture. I know that many - most? - Americans will defend to their last breathe the 'right to bear arms' (while conveniently failing to discuss the 'as part of a militia' bit) and it's your nation, your right to have guns. Couple that with the nihilism of the Chicago gangs, and things like this happen. I went to a seminar earlier this year to listen to guys who are working with the gangs in Chicago and trying to halt the culture of violence and nihilism were presenting. Fascinating stuff. And it seems that some of the work they're doing is having a positive effect, but they also explained the traditions and histories of some of the gangs and helped us to see how entrenched they are. We have 'gangs' here in Glasgow. We don't have a gun culture, so the murders and attacks are usually sharp instruments. But the 'gangs' are just groups of lads from the same streets. They don't have recognised 'colours' and 'uniforms' and the whole paramilitary sub-structures that some of the Chicago gangs seem to have. that is the problem. guns are a non issue. it is the garbage that make up gangs that are the sole cause of the problems. as a rule, the cops don't do any more than they have to investigating the murder of a gangbanger. the only good gangbanger is a dead one, so as long as the trash are only killing themselves, there's no loss. it's when they kill real people that the problem arises
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 19:02:35 GMT
A gun culture is a gun culture. I know that many - most? - Americans will defend to their last breathe the 'right to bear arms' (while conveniently failing to discuss the 'as part of a militia' bit) and it's your nation, your right to have guns. Couple that with the nihilism of the Chicago gangs, and things like this happen. I went to a seminar earlier this year to listen to guys who are working with the gangs in Chicago and trying to halt the culture of violence and nihilism were presenting. Fascinating stuff. And it seems that some of the work they're doing is having a positive effect, but they also explained the traditions and histories of some of the gangs and helped us to see how entrenched they are. We have 'gangs' here in Glasgow. We don't have a gun culture, so the murders and attacks are usually sharp instruments. But the 'gangs' are just groups of lads from the same streets. They don't have recognised 'colours' and 'uniforms' and the whole paramilitary sub-structures that some of the Chicago gangs seem to have. the second amendment says absolutely NOTHING about the right to bear arms "as part of a militia". the militia sentence is totally separate and unrelated to the right to bear arms not being infringed. it is quite simple english, as the supreme court just pointed out in heller.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2009 19:05:12 GMT
A gun culture is a gun culture. I know that many - most? - Americans will defend to their last breathe the 'right to bear arms' (while conveniently failing to discuss the 'as part of a militia' bit) and it's your nation, your right to have guns. Couple that with the nihilism of the Chicago gangs, and things like this happen. I went to a seminar earlier this year to listen to guys who are working with the gangs in Chicago and trying to halt the culture of violence and nihilism were presenting. Fascinating stuff. And it seems that some of the work they're doing is having a positive effect, but they also explained the traditions and histories of some of the gangs and helped us to see how entrenched they are. We have 'gangs' here in Glasgow. We don't have a gun culture, so the murders and attacks are usually sharp instruments. But the 'gangs' are just groups of lads from the same streets. They don't have recognised 'colours' and 'uniforms' and the whole paramilitary sub-structures that some of the Chicago gangs seem to have. the second amendment says absolutely NOTHING about the right to bear arms "as part of a militia". the militia sentence is totally separate and unrelated to the right to bear arms not being infringed. it is quite simple english, as the supreme court just pointed out in heller. "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It gives the existence of well regulated Militia as the REASON for the right to bear arms.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2009 19:05:50 GMT
A gun culture is a gun culture. I know that many - most? - Americans will defend to their last breathe the 'right to bear arms' (while conveniently failing to discuss the 'as part of a militia' bit) and it's your nation, your right to have guns. Couple that with the nihilism of the Chicago gangs, and things like this happen. I went to a seminar earlier this year to listen to guys who are working with the gangs in Chicago and trying to halt the culture of violence and nihilism were presenting. Fascinating stuff. And it seems that some of the work they're doing is having a positive effect, but they also explained the traditions and histories of some of the gangs and helped us to see how entrenched they are. We have 'gangs' here in Glasgow. We don't have a gun culture, so the murders and attacks are usually sharp instruments. But the 'gangs' are just groups of lads from the same streets. They don't have recognised 'colours' and 'uniforms' and the whole paramilitary sub-structures that some of the Chicago gangs seem to have. that is the problem. guns are a non issue. it is the garbage that make up gangs that are the sole cause of the problems. as a rule, the cops don't do any more than they have to investigating the murder of a gangbanger. the only good gangbanger is a dead one, so as long as the trash are only killing themselves, there's no loss. it's when they kill real people that the problem arises Have you heard the phrase 'a 3 shit murder'? A shit kills a shit and nobody gives a shit.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 15, 2009 20:18:10 GMT
As somebody who was stupid enough to be part of a gang in my mispent youth the fact is that people join them for three main reasons.
(Not necessarily in order of importance because that varies with individual to individual)
1 For protection from other gangsters 2 For status and power 3 For the thrill
Till society can protect its own people properly, and poor youngsters can find better ways to get status and power, and kids' lives are less boring and more fulfilled, gangs will continue.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 23:30:48 GMT
the second amendment says absolutely NOTHING about the right to bear arms "as part of a militia". the militia sentence is totally separate and unrelated to the right to bear arms not being infringed. it is quite simple english, as the supreme court just pointed out in heller. "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It gives the existence of well regulated Militia as the REASON for the right to bear arms. wrong hon. that is what those who would like to reject history, have no knowledge of the constitution, and are only interested in perverting it, like to claim. everyone with any sense knows better. as thomas jefferson said, "he who turns his guns into plowshares, will plow for those who don't." nonetheless, just because i like you and hate to see you be deluded by the nutjobs, here is exactly what the second amendment means in plain english: Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. now, you know what the second amendment REALLY says you're welcome
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 23:32:06 GMT
that is the problem. guns are a non issue. it is the garbage that make up gangs that are the sole cause of the problems. as a rule, the cops don't do any more than they have to investigating the murder of a gangbanger. the only good gangbanger is a dead one, so as long as the trash are only killing themselves, there's no loss. it's when they kill real people that the problem arises Have you heard the phrase 'a 3 shit murder'? A shit kills a shit and nobody gives a shit. i hadn't heard it, but it is certainly apropos, and i will use the term every chance i get
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2009 23:35:27 GMT
As somebody who was stupid enough to be part of a gang in my mispent youth the fact is that people join them for three main reasons. (Not necessarily in order of importance because that varies with individual to individual) 1 For protection from other gangsters 2 For status and power 3 For the thrill Till society can protect its own people properly, and poor youngsters can find better ways to get status and power, and kids' lives are less boring and more fulfilled, gangs will continue. huh uh. "poor youngsters", nor any youngsters at all deserve, nor have ANY right to any status or power. society DOES protect its people, and the kid's lives can be less boring and more fulfilled studying, which is the ONLY thing they have the right to do, other than work of course.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 16, 2009 7:58:33 GMT
Jumbo
Re. 2nd Amendment.
It's your constitution; you'all can decide what it says. I'd say, purely on the question of use of the English language, it's ambigious, but I'm not a US citizen so it's no skin off my nose how you choose to interpret it.
And it's your culture; if you want a gun culture why not go the whole hog and do away with the restrictions you currently have on gun ownership? You could become like one of the 'Stans, with everyone driving around with machine guns in their trucks.
But don't expect to convince me that your gun culture is not responsible for large numbers of unnecessary deaths.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2009 14:13:00 GMT
Jumbo Re. 2nd Amendment. It's your constitution; you'all can decide what it says. I'd say, purely on the question of use of the English language, it's ambigious, but I'm not a US citizen so it's no skin off my nose how you choose to interpret it. And it's your culture; if you want a gun culture why not go the whole hog and do away with the restrictions you currently have on gun ownership? You could become like one of the 'Stans, with everyone driving around with machine guns in their trucks. But don't expect to convince me that your gun culture is not responsible for large numbers of unnecessary deaths. the right to have guns is not absolute. even when the second amendment was written, the insane were not allowed to have guns. it is necessary to have rational regulations aimed at keeping the guns away from the trash that choose to be criminals. look how well england's gun ban works. it works so well that five 13-15 year olds can just run up and shoot an 11 year old boy. yep. great job that gun ban does. there is no gun culture here. thankfully, more and more jurisdictions are expanding right to carry, which has prevented many crimes. just here in nashville, there is generally a heartwarming story every couple of weeks about a homeowner or store customer killing a worthless piece of shyt trying to rob them. the more criminals that go into body bags, the less crime that there will be, and guns are the easiest way to accomplish this.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 16, 2009 18:44:55 GMT
there is no gun culture here. That's not a credible argument. You just need to look at murder/accident stats in the USA cf stats in other countries to realise that. I would have more respect for your position if you defended your gun culture rather than denying it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2009 22:46:04 GMT
there is no gun culture here. That's not a credible argument. You just need to look at murder/accident stats in the USA cf stats in other countries to realise that. I would have more respect for your position if you defended your gun culture rather than denying it. hardly. NO comparison between the u.s. and any other nation in the world have any merit whatsoever. no other country has even close to the demographics that we have, nor the society that we have. claiming a gun culture is specious on its face. the fact is that the two countries in the world with the lowest crime rate, finland and switzerland, REQUIRE every competent male citizen to own a gun. since that puts the percentage of gun owners at 95% of the population of those countries, it is simply ludicrous to try to claim that the u.s., where less than half the population own gun, is a gun culture
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2009 17:06:25 GMT
Hi Iamjumbo! I had a quick look at Wikipaedia, and although there is high gun ownership I don't think it is true that men in Switzerland or Finland are required to carry guns, which have to be licensed. And what about Japan, another country with a very low crime rate where almost no-one has a gun? Finland has a high per capita crime rate, though shootings form a small proportion of murders. Finland crime statistics
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2009 15:18:37 GMT
Hi Iamjumbo! I had a quick look at Wikipaedia, and although there is high gun ownership I don't think it is true that men in Switzerland or Finland are required to carry guns, which have to be licensed. And what about Japan, another country with a very low crime rate where almost no-one has a gun? Finland has a high per capita crime rate, though shootings form a small proportion of murders. Finland crime statisticsswitzerland required it because they pretty much do not have a standing army, and therefore, all male citizens make up their defense force. again though, japan does not have a remotely similar society that has the u.s. no other nation in the world does. that's why no comparison can be made between the u.s. and any other country.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 7:39:47 GMT
Quite right, jumbo, care needs to be taken when making comparisons. A lot of people in the US seem to carry guns purely for self-defence, whereas both Switzerland and Finland have a big tradition of hunting. I don't know if licensing laws require this, but if hunting rifles have to be kept under lock and key, it will be less easy to snatch them in the heat of the moment. Tough Finland suffered one of those terrible teen school massacres a year or so ago and there was talk of revising the gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 21, 2009 14:40:25 GMT
Quite right, jumbo, care needs to be taken when making comparisons. A lot of people in the US seem to carry guns purely for self-defence, whereas both Switzerland and Finland have a big tradition of hunting. I don't know if licensing laws require this, but if hunting rifles have to be kept under lock and key, it will be less easy to snatch them in the heat of the moment. Tough Finland suffered one of those terrible teen school massacres a year or so ago and there was talk of revising the gun laws. long guns, rifles and shotguns, aren't registered here. with the demise of the assault weapons ban, you can once again buy them, but they do have to be registered. all handguns require registration, and in the twenty-eight states that allow concealed carry, you have to have a concealed carry license. only vermont and alaska do not require cc permits, although alaska requires it of non residents. obviously, most people do keep their rifles and shotguns in cases, or in the back window of their truck, but handguns are solely for self defense, and it would be pretty stupid to have it locked up where it would take a couple of minutes to get to it. you have the handgun where it is readily accessible to you in the event that it is necessary to use it, but of course, not to a child. a school district in texas is the only one which has taken the proper precautions against a school shooting. most of the teachers are armed. that is obviously the ONLY rational way to stop such incidents
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 19:30:22 GMT
Unless of course a teacher goes bananas and starts shooting. This may well be just a matter of time.
|
|