At least 71 shot, 9 fatally

[M14 Shooter]

If you don't have to report a sale to the government for a background check when you sell a gun, so that makes it legal for a bad guy to get a gun.

Its never legal for a prohibited person to have a gun.

 

[Woodznutz]

.

Um, no, guy, this is just crazy talk, really. Oral B is not sending you secret messages. Your doctor told you about this before.

Oral B advertising is blatantly false. Their product cannot possibly do what they advertise.

Actually, no. Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.

Gun suicides (and all suicides) are a personal choice, not a gun problem.

I understand the problem perfectly fine. The war on drugs fails for the same reason that prohibition fails.

We have to address the drug users first. They provide every dollar for the drug trade. Take out the money, the drug business collapses, along with the drug related shootings.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

CHICAGO (WLS) -- The shooting victims from over the weekend range in age from 13 to 57, representing various parts of the city, and the violence has some seeking new solutions.
South Lawndale residents met with police on Monday following a staggering number of weekend shootings.
At least 71 people were shot, nine of them killed, across the city from Friday evening to Monday morning, police said.

Chicago shootings: At least 71 shot, 9 fatally, from Friday to Monday across city, police say

At least 71 people were shot, nine fatally, in gun violence across Chicago from Friday evening to Monday morning, CPD said.

abc7chicago.com

Why didn’t this make the MSM evening news last night?
Why wont this be on the MSM evening news tonight?

The media is quick to tell us all about a ‘mass shooting’ where 4 people are shot but no one killed, but the mass shootings that go on in major cities every weekend get nothing.

Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

Because it's just another weekend in Chicago.

 

[Woodznutz]

Okay, then let the victims bring cases. I promise you, juries won't be that sympathetic, especially if the gun seller knew they had a crazy person in the store.

In order to deny a mentally ill person a gun they must have been confined in a mental health facility for treatment by order of the court, and this record must be available to the dealer at the time of sale.

 

[JoeB131]

Because it's not supposed to happen in a state with such strict gun laws. Gun control is supposed to prevent things like this, but......folks, HERE WE GO AGAIN.

Illinois doesn't have strict gun laws. I wish we did.

 

[JoeB131]

In order to deny a mentally ill person a gun they must have been confined in a mental health facility for treatment by order of the court, and this record must be available to the dealer at the time of sale.

Nope.

Here is how it should work: you apply for a gun. That application is handed off to a background check agency that will talk to your co-workers, neighbors, and family members. And if any of them says, "That guy is Nucking Futz," you don't get a gun.

"But the Founding Slave Rapists said I can have a gun!!!!"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Nope.

Here is how it should work: you apply for a gun. That application is handed off to a background check agency that will talk to your co-workers, neighbors, and family members. And if any of them says, "That guy is Nucking Futz," you don't get a gun.

"But the Founding Slave Rapists said I can have a gun!!!!"

Thankfully that isn't how it works and never will. That's lunacy

 

[Meathead]

Illinois doesn't have strict gun laws. I wish we did.

8th strickles. Means 42 states laxer.

Strictest Gun Laws by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[JoeB131]

Thankfully that isn't how it works and never will. That's lunacy

Really? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years could have been avoided if someone had done that.

When I applied for my mortgage, they did a thorough background check.
When I applied for my job, they did a thorough background check.
When I sponsored my wife for immigration, they did a thorough background check.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Really? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years could have been avoided if someone had done that.

When I applied for my mortgage, they did a thorough background check.
When I applied for my job, they did a thorough background check.
When I sponsored my wife for immigration, they did a thorough background check.

All it'd take is one idiot with a grudge to deny a citizen their Constitutional rights. You didn't think that far

 

[JoeB131]

All it'd take is one idiot with a grudge to deny a citizen their Constitutional rights. You didn't think that far

The Second Amendment is about militias, not guns.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Second Amendment is about militias, not guns.

its about the right of the people to keep and bear arms,,,

guns are a form of arms you pervert,,

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Second Amendment is about militias, not guns.

Gawd you're fuckin ignorant. Nobody is buying that garbage

 

[MarathonMike]

CHICAGO (WLS) -- The shooting victims from over the weekend range in age from 13 to 57, representing various parts of the city, and the violence has some seeking new solutions.
South Lawndale residents met with police on Monday following a staggering number of weekend shootings.
At least 71 people were shot, nine of them killed, across the city from Friday evening to Monday morning, police said.

Chicago shootings: At least 71 shot, 9 fatally, from Friday to Monday across city, police say

At least 71 people were shot, nine fatally, in gun violence across Chicago from Friday evening to Monday morning, CPD said.

abc7chicago.com

Why didn’t this make the MSM evening news last night?
Why wont this be on the MSM evening news tonight?

The media is quick to tell us all about a ‘mass shooting’ where 4 people are shot but no one killed, but the mass shootings that go on in major cities every weekend get nothing.

Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

I thought the Democrats were congratulating themselves that they had shootings under control? Hate to see what 4th of July is going to look like.

 

[MarathonMike]

Oh, I'm very concerned about the innocents shot, which is why I would like to see sensible gun laws to make it hard for people who shouldn't have guns to get them.

What makes you think Chicago gang bangers will comply with these "sensible gun laws"? You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the problem.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What makes you think Chicago gang bangers will comply with these "sensible gun laws"? You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the problem.

They don't comply with gun laws now

 

[2aguy]

Well his BIG tax break did cause a very minor bump in our already good economy. Your version is spin bulllshit. And it caused the debt to double and inflation

Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie Call Out Trump for Adding to Federal Debt​

"He owes it to you to defend his record where they added $7.8 trillion to the debt that set the stage for the inflation that we have."​

ERIC BOEHM | 9.27.2023 10:45 PM

The country’s current “inflationary spiral” can also be traced back to COVID-19, Maher said, describing the trillions of dollars the government issued throughout the pandemic. This, he noted, should not be pinned on President Joe Biden, but his predecessor, former President Donald Trump.

“We’re going to bring back Trump?” he asked. “The guy who ignored COVID like it was the dinner check? Talk about not learning anything.”

No....spending caused that.....

Dumb shit........the actual revenue after Trump's tax cuts.....you idiot...

U.S. Federal Government Tax Revenue

The federal government generates tax revenue through sources like income and corporate taxes. Learn how much tax revenue the U.S. generates each year.

www.thebalancemoney.com

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, that is kind of crazy, given a gun in the home is far more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.


blah, blah, blah...

There were no Democrats back when the Founding Slave Rapists failed to define a militia clearly.


We lock up 2 million people.

Now, I'm all for locking up just the violent offenders by releasing all the property offenders. That would just make property crimes more common.

You only have the capacity to lock up 2 million people. You have 9 million people in prison, parole, or probation and 70 million with police records. You have to prioritize. Who do you let go?

And you keep lying about guns in the home.......you are such an asshole.....

• The authors' interpretation of their results is an example of "data torturing" (1). Specifically, Kellermann and his colleagues are guilty of Procrustean data torturing, which is defined as "deciding on the hypothesis to be proved [in this case, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide] and making the data fit the hypothesis." Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls or that, by the authors' own admission, 11 of the case subjects were killed by private citizens acting legally in self-defense. In other words, some instances of gun ownership prevented the owner or family members from becoming victims -- indeed, may have even saved their lives.
  What the article did show is that illicit drug use, alcoholism, and a pattern of violent behavior are risk factors for homicide involving firearms. What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor. In other words, it is not the gun (an inanimate object) that is the problem but its inappropriate use.
  --------
  Additional analysis of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset shows that just over 4½ percent of all homicides, in the three counties Kellermann chose to study, involved victims being killed with a gun kept in their own home (see derivation). This supports the conclusion that people murdered with a gun kept in their own home are a small minority of all homicides, precisely the opposite of what an uncritical reader of Kellermann's study would likely conclude.
  --------
  

  Who's at higher risk for homicide?​

  (The percentages in this paragraph are based on an examination of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset.)
  As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded. (That's 3.5% of all matched cases. Likewise, the previously mentioned 4½ percent figure of all homicides involving a victim killed by a gun in the home falls to 2.1%.)
  These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides.
  
  As a Dr. Pat Baranello writes in a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor (source)."Kellermann's response (contained in the same source) although a true statement, sidesteps the letter writer's point. Kellerman's response was, "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide."

Correspondence -- NEJM 1994; 330: 365-368 -- February 3, 1994




Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

=================

Who's at higher risk for homicide?​

(The percentages in this paragraph are based on an examination of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset.)
As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded. (That's 3.5% of all matched cases. Likewise, the previously mentioned 4½ percent figure of all homicides involving a victim killed by a gun in the home falls to 2.1%.)
These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides.
As a Dr. Pat Baranello writes in a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor (source)." Kellermann's response (contained in the same source) although a true statement, sidesteps the letter writer's point. Kellerman's response was, "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide."
Households with persons having a criminal history or violence prone personality are at an increased risk for homicide, and a gun in the hands of these kinds of persons also most likely independently increases homicide risk more so than it does for law-abiding gun owning households.
Mathematically speaking, logistic regression calculates only one co-efficient per risk factor (which can be converted into an odds-ratio). If a gun in the hands of persons with criminal records or a history of violence are much more prone to commit homicide than unarmed persons without those risk factors, and the large majority of cases in a regression model had a history of violence and arrests, the odds-ratio is going to reflect the increased risk of a gun in the hands of a volatile group, rather than representing a risk factor for the general population. It's also possible that the risk of homicide by law-abiding persons could be extremely small, yet those same people with guns have a much higher risk of homicide, resulting in an odds ratio higher than what Kellermann's final model showed. Kellermann's study simply can't tell us which is the case (or neither).
Kellermann's defenders may try to claim that a link was found between guns and homicide for all 14 subgroups he studied (p. 1089), however each one of those subgroups still contained a majority of high-risk cases. (For an example to the contrary, even though living alone was found to be riskier than owning a gun, examining the ICPSR dataset shows there were 46 matched-pair cases who lived alone and had no history of arrest or violent activity. 15 cases were gun owning households versus 19 of the controls, giving a crude odds-ratio of 0.688. In this group, gunowners had a 31.2% lower risk of being murdered. But these numbers aren't conclusive of gun ownership being protective due to the lack of controls for any other factors that influence homicide victimization. It's simply an example of what might be a low-risk subgroup. Further study would be necessary.)

Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, that is kind of crazy, given a gun in the home is far more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.


blah, blah, blah...

There were no Democrats back when the Founding Slave Rapists failed to define a militia clearly.


We lock up 2 million people.

Now, I'm all for locking up just the violent offenders by releasing all the property offenders. That would just make property crimes more common.

You only have the capacity to lock up 2 million people. You have 9 million people in prison, parole, or probation and 70 million with police records. You have to prioritize. Who do you let go?

There were no Democrats back when the Founding Slave Rapists failed to define a militia clearly.

The democrat party was founded by slave owners and was the party of slavery and slave rape, you lying ass....and you now vote for them.

 

[2aguy]

Wow, you really think that Supply Side works, don't you? Despite all the proof that it doesn't.

It works like a charm......it generates tax revenue for the government and creates economic booms that help everyone...