Geez, that's around the corner from me! Didn't hear the shots but scares the crap out of me because ten minutes later and my son would have been walking home from the L. What's worse is that if the victims weren't gangbangers, then the shootings were totally random and vicious, because the shooters were in bikes, didn't try to rob the victims and rode away without missing a beat. So now folks are being shot for sport. Disgusting.
My 2¢: Until the gangs are eradicated from Chicago speculating about or dismissing a shooting as "gang related" is irrelevant to those of us who live in the area. Bullets are bullets. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger or who the intended victim is, when guns are fired on busy main thoroughfares or sidewalks (or anywhere, for that matter) it's easy to miss and hit an unintended victim. Gang related or not, there's a whole lotta shootin' goin' on in Edgewater and any of us could be the next unintended victim.
(To be clear, I'm not dismissing the gang problem as irrelevant - it's a huge issue and concern for all of Chicago, and, increasingly, our neighborhood.)
True, Julie, Michael & LL. No matter the affiliation or records of the shooters and intended victims, UNintended vics get caught in the line of fire too. (Not just that poor little kid killed on her front porch, but one of our EveryBlock neighbors who had a bullet come through her window). We're all in danger. Only hope some moronic legislator doesn't manage to push through concealed-carry or stand-your-ground laws--if so, we might as well be living in Dodge City circa 1880.
Simple--more people walking around armed means more shooting--and not just criminals getting shot. If some "civilian" (or in gang parlance, "neutron") decides to take the law into his own hands not just perps but innocent people are going to get shot. (Two little words: Trayvon Martin). These concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws are being abused to the point where we've to all intents and purposes started privatizing law enforcement. I'm not going to get into an argument over 2nd Amdmt. rights here because I'm not for banning ownership of guns, but rather for sane controls on ownership and use. Those two vigilante-enabling statutes undermine public safety. Unless you are an off-duty law enforcement officer there is no valid reason to carry a concealed gun in the city.
I also use to live in New Orleans and currently have family there. It is not "worse" due to conceal and carry. There are numerous issues that contribute to the crime in NOLA but we can save that for another conversation. Criminals will continue to carry weapons. I use to be against conceal and carry in Chicago. That was until the shootings were no longer constrained to certain areas, hitting the intended targets. I lived in the Gold Coast for 12 1/2 yrs with Cabrini as my neighbor. The shootings didn't leave Cabrini nor were there stray bullets hitting innocent people walking down the street.
After moving to Lakeview for a neighborhood vs high rise haven, I was amazed at the amount of crime that plagues the neighborhoods. I no longer felt safe, as I previously had living in high rises, oblivious to what occurred in nice neighborhoods filled with houses, children and the innocent. Young thugs shooting aimlessly, hitting innocent people including children is UNACCEPTABLE! The violence has increased, spreading across the city. As long as there are felons, children aka wanna be gang bangers and others carrying concealed weapons, citizens should have the right to protect/defend themselves. I agree with Tracy, it hasn't worked thus far. What are we waiting for?
LT, what I worry about is the kind of situation down in Sanford, FL with the Martin/Zimmerman case. Moreover, from what I know of the shootings around the area (especially the gang-related ones), usually the first sign you're under attack is that you've BEEN shot--if you're still alive to notice it. Highly unlikely you'd get the chance to draw a weapon to protect yourself, or even use one you are brandishing as you walk. And there are all those bystanders who get caught up in the crossfire. Nothing good can come of concealed-carry in the city.
And even if the attacker is within range (most aren't--they flee immediately), if injured you're not going to have the most accurate aim. I have handgun training, and it takes steady nerves and a three-point stance to hit the target every time.
Trayvon Martin is a tragedy. So are the several innocent children that get shot daily. No one will ever know what "really" happened. Why has Trayvon Martin become a super hero? Similar incidents happen daily but without propaganda, go unmentioned. We have a bigger problem right here in Chicago staring us in the face. Anyone who wants a gun can and will get one.
What is an example or ideas to ensure sane use and control of arms? I'm not being sarcastic, I am interested in hearing what people have to say:)
The proliferation of guns in New Orleans is off the charts. One little fact that gets ignored is how many stolen guns there are. Its not practicle to carry a gun or allowed in every facility. Like schools where teachers work for instance.
The bad guys knows this so they steal the guns day in and day out.
Gun advocates NEVER talk about this.
It is a big problem. Also firearms have tacticle limitations but that is another story......
Why can't the city council & the State legislature require a high insurance bond on gun owners - just in case they take a pot shot at someone and miss the intended trarget and hit a person 2 blocks away? No insurance no FOI Card. No FOI Card? Do not pass go, go straight to jail.
I have the right to walk down a street without meeting a wayward bullet set loose by some NRA member.
They require car insurance, they require helmets for motorcycles, etc. Why should these guys get a pass?
Also, It is time to consider a tax on each bullet sold - a buck a shot. The money collected could be used to bolster the police dept. ranks. Most states have a deposit on bottles & Cans.
@Ed G, I don't think the guys shooting off rounds in Rogers Park are NRA members, just a gut feeling. Also, considering the criminal element, I somehow doubt a lot of the guns are registered (they perhaps may even be stolen)
I highly doubt the solution to stopping shootings such as these is to place even more restrictions on legal gun owners. It seems highly unlikely that the shooters in this case bought their guns legally.
What we need is NYC-style police presence on these main roads.
That may be true, bopper, but I am certain that neither does the solution lie in expanding legal gun ownership by allowing concealed-carry. Doesn't matter if the assailants are using illegal guns--a legal gun can just as easily create crossfire that kills or maims innocent people who happen to unwittingly get in the way. We may not be able to make a dent in illegal guns and what they do, but we sure as heck ought to make sure that there are fewer shooters out there--and stopping the *expansion* of gun ownership in the city means keeping the status quo on restrictions, not making more of them.
A NYC-style police presence would necessitate hiring the same percentage of officers here as in NYC. I'm not quite understanding the concern about crossfire as it pertains to CC. While we hear of crossfire incidents on an almost daily basis in Chicago, I don't often (if ever) hear about it occurring in incidents involving trained licensed CC citizens. I would think it would make the national news if in fact it was occurring.
Anecdotal but likely true. A recent Mythbusters episode tested various ways of shooting a handgun, including the "gangster" and "Hollyowood" ways (sideways, two hands, from the hip.) The ONLY accurate method was aiming accurately with the gunsights. The other methods--the ones I'm sure our GBers use--were completely inaccurate, with the target almost always missed. Meaning people get caught in crossfire because GBers don't know how to (or care to) aim.
That said, we don't need NYC proportions of police officers to get officers out of their cars and onto the street. When I moved here from NYC in 2003, the first thing I thought was, "Where are the cops?" Because until today, you almost never see them in the neighborhoods unless they're going by in a cruiser. When GBers know they could turn a corner and WALK RIGHT INTO THE COPS at any moment, it makes a HUGE difference.
In my opinion, the state should lock people up for an extended period of time for getting caught with an unregistered/illegal handgun. If you use it, the sentence should be longer (30 years minimum to start, much longer if you injure or kill someone of course). I realize our prisons are overcrowded, but at some point people that commit crime after crime (especially organized crime like gang activity) need to be locked up for the long haul. We can either do it when we initially catch them with an illegal gun, or wait for them to injure or kill someone. It seems more logical to crack down on them before that even happens. The punishment for getting caught with an illegal firearm is too lax, no wonder so many bad guys do this. They get caught, the gun gets confiscated, they get a small smudge on their record, and then they're back on the streets.
Having a cop on a corner would be a great thing. But manpower is deployed by beats in a district. Theoretically a cop is supposed to be assigned to each beat for each tour of duty. There is an expanse of blocks per beat, some beats are larger than others. Lots of corners on that beat too. To cover that area in an expeditious manner, that one beat cop is assigned a "cruiser". Beyond making his or her presence known to prevent crime, that beat cop also gets dispatched to write reports for us, respond to in-progress calls, make arrests. All of that takes him/her off the corner as well as off the beat sometimes too.
I dunno, I see cops parking their vehicles in no-parking zones in Edgewater all the time at meal time. I think it sends a bad message to residents when the only time you see your beat cops walking down the street, it's while they're carrying their doggie bags back to their illegally parked cruisers.
Michael: my response pertains to your previous post regarding your belief that we don't need the same percentage of officers as NYC, just more officers out of cars and on the corners. I think your response about officers parking their vehicles illegally is another matter entirely and not on topic as to how we can effectively make our neighborhood safer.
Well there are studies that show crime decreasing after increases in gun ownership/concealed carry, but lots of people seem to think that there are problems with the science of that conclusion. However, I have yet to see any evidence that increased gun ownership increases crimes such as gang-related violence. I think legal gun ownership is probably pretty irrelevant to gang shootouts over drugs/turf further down Broadway, or gang initiation/general mayhem shootings such as these in Edgewater.
We should not be wasting our time arguing over a tangential issue.
What we need is a more systematic police presence on major corridors, innovative policing strategies such as http://www.economist.com/node/21548989, and an overall focus on at-risk children to nip this type of dysfunction in the bud.
I really wish that this discussion had not devolved into an argument over whether or not we need even further restrictive gun laws. The issue is also a bit silly to be discussing as it is pretty much settled by the Supreme Court at this point.
Has there been any more news on this shooting? I am quite concerned since it is the first shooting I can remember where the intended targets were completely innocent. Yes, gang on gang shooting is bad and oftentimes injures or even kills innocent bystanders, but to target bystanders seems even more awful.
Elmo, I disagree. Perception is an important part of everything, including policing. And when you almost never see officers walking down the street unless they're in some "off-duty" pursuit, like dinner or a bathroom break, it definitely speaks to residents' perception of how well officers know the neighborhood on the street. The same thing applies to the CTA. NYPD patrols the subway in New York, and often. Lack of similar patrols here made (and continue to make) me feel less safe on the 'L' here.
Michael, doesn't NYPD have their own separate transit police dept.? So it seems that our conversation again goes back to the size of the police force and the ability and way in which to cover the area that is being policed. Look at the beat map for the area in which you live. You have one officer assigned to your beat. How best to deploy him/her? I'd love to see an officer walking in and around my block, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But how can we accomplish this with the limited personnel assigned to our area?
Sandy... Concealed carry just has never resulted in large numbers of the types of situations that you mention. Nowhere, ever.
The Florida situation has yet to have all the facts revealed and the veil of media propaganda removed. I'm not taking a stand either way on it... I just shake my head at the way the media has swayed the American people from one side to another back to the first. From the photos that are meant to prejudice the readers (Trevon as an 8th grader holding a baby and smiling or the other one of him with the 'grill'. Zimmerman in his old booking photo vs the photo of him in a shirt and tie.) to slowly leaking details that make both of them out to be a monster or a choir boy depending on the day, its ridiculous. This is why there are investigations and juries, not jump to conclusion justice.
Gang bangers don't get most of their guns from stealing them from law abiding people. If that were the case, there would be very few guns in Chicago as its been illegal for 'law abiding' citizens to 'really' own hand guns for years and years. They get most of their guns from straw buyers. People who are legally allowed to buy and then sell them to criminals on the street. Cops know this. But this activity is ALREADY illegal. Passing another law on this activity isn't going to make it any more illegal. Maybe increasing the penalty? Or more importantly, maybe actually enforcing this law would help. When was the last conviction on this that YOU heard of?
They key is to pass 'enforceable' laws against those people who would use guns to do their ill business. Gina, most parts of Illinois don't require 'registration' and shouldn't. (Registration isn't the same thing as having to get a FOID). What good will that do, really? Guns can already be traced for the most part. Manufacturers have a record of who they sold them to and FFL dealers have to keep their records for years also. To your standard gangbanger, if they are willing to break the law by killing someone, I think its unrealistic to think and expect that they will suddenly have conviction to follow a law demanding they register their gun. Thus the only people that the registration law will impact will again be law abiding people that aren't apt to go shooting up the neighborhood anyway. The annual 'fee' also will only impact those who don't need to be further taxed or fee'd and the criminals won't be lining up to pay the tax anyway. In fact, its almost ironic that we want to raise fees and taxes on law abiding gun owners to provide funding to control gang bangers who operate in an underground economy and pay very little in taxes themselves.
Mary Mitchell had a good article in the Sun Times today (Sunday). I don't always agree with her but in her column she discussed that the black community (that's who she was writing about) is slowly but steadily coming to the conclusion that the violence isn't a policing issue. Its a community issue. At some point in some time, it became 'ok' in the black community to kill each other. Until people in the impacted communities who are involved in the carnage (or their family and friends who know they are involved) decide that killing is no longer acceptable, this problem will persist. You can pass all the laws you want against people who are apt to obey them, but until the people with so little respect for the law to begin with change their thinking or are removed from the street, this problem will persist.
The friends, parents, aunts, and uncles have to report who they know is doing this to their community. They have to avoid their family and friends getting involved in this. Until that happens, no amount of gun laws (or knife laws, or baseball bat laws, or tire iron laws, etc) are going to really make a difference. If it was truly the 'availability of guns' that is the cause of this problem, you'd have the same issues on the same scale outside of urban areas. This is a culture of violence more than it is an availability of guns problem.
Sorry this is so long... the other item that needs to be corrected is the judicial system. Say what you want about the overcrowding but we have to stop letting our known criminals out with a slap on the wrist. I asked a detective friend of mine why Chicago charges so few people with the most basic of all gun laws in Illinois (not having a FOID card). He said that when someone is picked up with a gun, that the state charge of not having a FOID is automatic. They charge that all the time but its always pleaded away during the judicial side of things. If we aren't willing to enforce our existing laws, what's the point of layering law on top of unenforced law?
Has anyone noticed that most of these "thugs" have minors doing their dirty work. Maybe there needs to be some fines on the parents to encourage them to controll their children. Like first offense is $100.00, second $500.00, and third is juvie. These fines should be applied to anything including curfew. Maybe then parents will start to think more about what their kids are doing.
@Elmo, it used to be a separate police force. Some years ago the NYPD absorbed it and it became an internal division. As for what to do? Change the way CPD does business completely. I don't mean that flippantly, though neither do I have an answer how.
Your statistic is skewed, Elmo, because I'm not aware of any large cities where concealed-carry is lawful. In large cities where it is, I doubt whether it has any impact on gangs. My best guess is that the few cities that allow CC had little gang presence to begin with, their gangs are confined to non-diverse neighborhoods, and it's gang-on-gang violence. Let's not forget that not all criminals use stolen guns--Jared Loughner and the kid who shot up VA Tech were duly registered gun owners with CC permits. How do you know that no Chicago gangbangers got their guns lawfully in other jurisdictions or at gun shows? And the knowledge that there may be civilians walking around lawfully armed is no deterrent to gangbangers. There's no valid reason for CC in an urban setting other than to promote a false sense of security or worse, vigilantism--and if the latter, we might as well throw law & order to the wolves.
To reiterate: when under fire and thus extreme stress, accuracy goes out the window---even for police officers who ARE highly trained and responsible. In a street shooting incident, you're not going to get the chance to fire first (unless you're a vigilante--a whole other can of worms) and if hit you're not going to be able to fire accurately because you've no time to aim. You often don't get the chance to fire at all if the shooters have fled, or if you're critically wounded or dead. Harsher penalties, consistent prosecution, and more police presence are the only way to reduce gang violence--and the latter is too expensive for Chicago unless we raise taxes. (For the record, I'd pay higher taxes if it meant better public safety).
It's not true to say that only increased police presence would cost more money, as all three things mentioned cost the state money. We need to get creative if we are to solve these issues with our given resources.
Felons cannot buy guns legally - not even at gun shows, but yes it's possible that gang members could buy guns before they have a record. I've not seen any evidence that this is common practice, but it's certainly possible.
No one can point to any increases in violence in jurisdictions that allow some form of carry becasue there is no such evidence. Jared Loughner most certainly did not possess a CCW permit, though his gun was purchased legally. It's not possible to stop madmen from getting weapons in a free country, especially one with a second amendment.
It's pretty ridiculous that we are all still arguing about legal gun ownership when it had nothing whatsoever to do with this case, or any other gang/youth shooting in the area that I am aware of.
If we are going to talk about changing laws then perhaps a different tact toward drug use would make more sense. It would probably be a lot harder to indoctrinate youth into joining gangs if they had to resort to less lucrative, and therefore less glamorous, crimes to make their money. I'm all for throwing the book at violent individuals, perhaps even going as far as life imprisonment for all shootings such as this, but we'll never be able to stop organized crime when there is so much easy money to be made from paying "victims". Yes drug addiction is quite bad, but armed drug dealers, turf wars and the attractiveness of easy money to our youth is worse.
Bopper, the whole reason I brought up CC permits was that I was afraid that as a reaction to gang shootings some might push for them (and "stand-your-ground" laws); sure enough, someone here suggested they might reduce or prevent gang shootings or allow "neutrons" to protect ourselves from it. They won't, and it's not the way to address the problems of gang violence.
The point that's being missed is.. where do these criminals get these guns? For the most part, they don't buy them. They steal them. And from whom do they steal them? Legitimate gun owners is the likely answer. Thus goes the circle of violence. If you disagree with my logic, so be it. I probably won't argue with you.
I can't provide documentation nor do I know if CPD has the stats but from my experience the majority of guns taken off the streets are not registered which in essence would make them not stolen from legitimate gun owners. However seeing that until very recently a Chicagoan could not legitimately register a gun (unless the person was a police officer, fbi agent, etc.) the statistics might be unreliable. I can also tell you that many of the guns recovered from the street are cheap off brands that a legitimate gun owner would unlikely purchase.
"...until very recently a Chicagoan could not legitimately register a gun ..."
NOT CORRECT. You could not register a HAND GUN in the City of Chicago. As a hunter and gun owner, you could legally register long guns. This was Daley's 1980's law passed to reduce crime in the city. IT DID NOT WORK!
There is alot of misinformation and assumptions being put out here.
Bottom line - I am pretty sure Johnny the Gang Banger DID NOT get:
1. the Firearm Owner ID card (FOID) required for everyone in IL (required background check)
2. Take the five-hour training course required by the City of Chicago
3. Register his firearm on a yearly basis
4. Be photographed and fingerprinted by the CPD (requires another, different background check)
5. Pay about $200 in fees to the city and state
Criminals get their guns illegally or from straw buyers in other states. More laws are not the answer. The Chicago hand gun law was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2010.
Look at Mexico. They have one gunstore in the whole country where you can LEGALLY buy one gun. It is on a military base. You have to go to Mexico City in person to complete the paper work. Their murder rate for guns is much, much higher than the US.
ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS - WE HAVE ENOUGH GUN CONTROL!!!!