The headline today is "A Handgun's Deadly Path" tracing a straw purchase in Miss. to the killing of a Chicago police officer. I'm not sure what the answer is to stop these type crimes other than enforcement of laws already on the books, but you can be sure this story will lead to yet more calls for increased gun control laws, at least here in Illinois.
Today's headline in the Chicago Tribune
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
+1
Like the other thread on here where the seller was arrested.
If everybody(law abiding sellers) obeyed ALL laws, you wouldn't trace these sales back to the gun shows!
That being said, you could ban all gun shows & the same bad guys would still get guns!
A well armed & well trained population is, in my opinion, the best way to deter these violent crimes!
If more intended victims are able to pull a gun & defend themselves with effective shot placement, even uneducated BGs will realize they have to come up with another way to get thier cash!
There will be more "sting" operations at gun shows!!
Like the other thread on here where the seller was arrested.
If everybody(law abiding sellers) obeyed ALL laws, you wouldn't trace these sales back to the gun shows!
That being said, you could ban all gun shows & the same bad guys would still get guns!
A well armed & well trained population is, in my opinion, the best way to deter these violent crimes!
If more intended victims are able to pull a gun & defend themselves with effective shot placement, even uneducated BGs will realize they have to come up with another way to get thier cash!
P.C. garbage and sensationalism sell Newspapers and gain viewers on Broadcasts. I wonder how many "Straw Purchase" handguns have prevented problems like this? Come On, I've made several purchases at gun shows and I have yet to shoot a Policeman, nor do I plan to. The source of the firearm in not relevant. It is the intent of the person holding it that counts.
I read it....
Excellent writing, from a journalistic point of view, giving more than just a bit of background information of some of the people and places, making them seem more real to the reader.
However, aside from its technical construction which would earn it a fair grade in class, the slanted viewpoint and uneven treatment of the subjects makes it trash.
The author briefly mentions that the majority of crime guns are obtained within Illinois, and then moves on to focus on one that wasn't.
He spends a lot of the article on the gun trafficker, his background, childhood, where he grew up, all described in detail. He mentions how the trafficker "couldn't stay out of trouble with the law" and supports this with gun charges (in gun prohibited Chicago), and how the trafficker "beat" the charges. (if you "beat" the charges, then you are found not guilty, right? Not guilty means you didn't commit a crime, in the eyes of the court.)
The author tells us about the tragic personal story of the straw-man, and how he likely didn't even know just how huge a crime he was committing when he bought the gun.
The author tells us about the heroic life and potential of the slain officer, but only mentions his killers in passing, giving some names and ages.
I cannot help but wonder why the author, who obviously did a good deal of research on the trafficker, straw-man, and slain officer didn't say anything about the thugs who killed him, beyond a brief sketch of the shooting itself?
Did he leave out details of the young thugs who killed the officer for racial reasons? Did he leave them out because they were career criminals with histories of violent acts, and would not draw any sympathy from readers? Or was it simply that his agenda was to vilify the trafficker and straw-man as much as he could, and any detailed mention of the criminals who actually pulled the trigger, two years later, would detract from that?
I have been seeing this my whole life, and still I cannot understand the disassociation of logic some people have when it comes to gun control laws. Places like Chicago, people rail against the violence that happens there, and cry that even though guns are not allowed there, they come in from other places.
Yet they cannot seem to grasp that in those other places, where the guns are "easy" to get, the level of violence is much less than in their wonderful city where guns are banned. It would seem to me that there must be some other factor driving the violence, not just the availability of guns. But they won't accept that. Many of them won't even look. The Tribune author puts himself squarely in that category, with his own words.
Excellent writing, from a journalistic point of view, giving more than just a bit of background information of some of the people and places, making them seem more real to the reader.
However, aside from its technical construction which would earn it a fair grade in class, the slanted viewpoint and uneven treatment of the subjects makes it trash.
The author briefly mentions that the majority of crime guns are obtained within Illinois, and then moves on to focus on one that wasn't.
He spends a lot of the article on the gun trafficker, his background, childhood, where he grew up, all described in detail. He mentions how the trafficker "couldn't stay out of trouble with the law" and supports this with gun charges (in gun prohibited Chicago), and how the trafficker "beat" the charges. (if you "beat" the charges, then you are found not guilty, right? Not guilty means you didn't commit a crime, in the eyes of the court.)
The author tells us about the tragic personal story of the straw-man, and how he likely didn't even know just how huge a crime he was committing when he bought the gun.
The author tells us about the heroic life and potential of the slain officer, but only mentions his killers in passing, giving some names and ages.
I cannot help but wonder why the author, who obviously did a good deal of research on the trafficker, straw-man, and slain officer didn't say anything about the thugs who killed him, beyond a brief sketch of the shooting itself?
Did he leave out details of the young thugs who killed the officer for racial reasons? Did he leave them out because they were career criminals with histories of violent acts, and would not draw any sympathy from readers? Or was it simply that his agenda was to vilify the trafficker and straw-man as much as he could, and any detailed mention of the criminals who actually pulled the trigger, two years later, would detract from that?
I have been seeing this my whole life, and still I cannot understand the disassociation of logic some people have when it comes to gun control laws. Places like Chicago, people rail against the violence that happens there, and cry that even though guns are not allowed there, they come in from other places.
Yet they cannot seem to grasp that in those other places, where the guns are "easy" to get, the level of violence is much less than in their wonderful city where guns are banned. It would seem to me that there must be some other factor driving the violence, not just the availability of guns. But they won't accept that. Many of them won't even look. The Tribune author puts himself squarely in that category, with his own words.
LockedBreech
New member
That's a fantastic analysis, 44 AMP. Unfortunately, most people these days are hardly literate, and can't see past good writing to see the unfair nature of the content. I go to school and work with a kid from Chicago here in Wyoming, and we debate about this stuff constantly. He insists that guns need to be regulated, and I ask him why I could get to three gun stores in walking distance from my university campus and buy a high-capacity gun, yet Wyoming has one of the lowest per-capita murder rates (like 45th or 46th I think).
As a criminal justice student, the most largely ignored fact that I see by articles like this is that the majority of gun violence (the LARGE majority) is due to gang activity. These articles paint it as though regular, NRA-member, range-fee-paying gun owners are the ones perpetrating crimes like these, but in reality is a small, hyperviolent group that isn't allowed to have the guns in the first place.
Chicago can enjoy its place of honor on top of the list of places I'd never dream of living.
As a criminal justice student, the most largely ignored fact that I see by articles like this is that the majority of gun violence (the LARGE majority) is due to gang activity. These articles paint it as though regular, NRA-member, range-fee-paying gun owners are the ones perpetrating crimes like these, but in reality is a small, hyperviolent group that isn't allowed to have the guns in the first place.
Chicago can enjoy its place of honor on top of the list of places I'd never dream of living.
Rifleman1776
New member
You guys have it all wrong.
It is the guns fault. Don't you understand anything?
Blame the gun, the shooter is just a victim of circumstances we should send him money to show our love.
Is this the point where I barf? :barf:
It is the guns fault. Don't you understand anything?
Blame the gun, the shooter is just a victim of circumstances we should send him money to show our love.
Is this the point where I barf? :barf:
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
You're most of the way there, LawScholar. The number 1 gang activity is...
LockedBreech
New member
Breaking laws!
A nice catch-all in case I miss what, specifically, you meant.
A nice catch-all in case I miss what, specifically, you meant.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
The number 1 gang activity is buying and selling illegal narcotics. Those are the core activities all others are based upon.
Tucker 1371
New member
I have no problem with LE setting up stings at gun shows. I'm legally eligible in every way and the only people who should be buying them are people with the same legal standing as myself. No felonies, no drug use, no mental issues (I think ), and of the legal age to purchase firearms.
I really do not think any of those laws are unjust and stings seem to be about the best way to proactively enforce them.
As for the newspaper, it immediately gave me the vibe that the Chicago Tribune was trying to pass the blame on to the guns themselves and not the string of criminals who misused them. Typical anti spewing their usual noise pollution.
), and of the legal age to purchase firearms. I really do not think any of those laws are unjust and stings seem to be about the best way to proactively enforce them.
As for the newspaper, it immediately gave me the vibe that the Chicago Tribune was trying to pass the blame on to the guns themselves and not the string of criminals who misused them. Typical anti spewing their usual noise pollution.
Dr. Strangelove
New member
I read the article
and it seemed to portray the straw-men as people who were unwittingly duped. I don't buy it. Offer me $30.00 to buy you a case of Coca-Cola, and I'm going to wonder why you can't just buy it yourself. What are you going to eventually do with these tasty refreshments?
The firearms aren't the issue, it's the subset of people who knowingly violate the law to further their own interests or those of someone else.
The problem becomes a social one, whole classes of people (race doesn't matter here, all races have gangs) have become accepting of a life of crime. Robbery, drug trafficking, prison sentences, even being wounded or killed by gun violence become a glamorous lifestyle and something to be emulated.
The article goes on to state that 10,000 firearms are confiscated each year in Chicago, a city that does everything in it's power and then some to prevent firearms ownership. It's clearly not firearms that are the problem, but a group of people who refuse to live within the laws of this nation.
Gun control isn't the issue, the real issue is taking back our nation from those who refuse to live by our laws.
and it seemed to portray the straw-men as people who were unwittingly duped. I don't buy it. Offer me $30.00 to buy you a case of Coca-Cola, and I'm going to wonder why you can't just buy it yourself. What are you going to eventually do with these tasty refreshments?
The firearms aren't the issue, it's the subset of people who knowingly violate the law to further their own interests or those of someone else.
The problem becomes a social one, whole classes of people (race doesn't matter here, all races have gangs) have become accepting of a life of crime. Robbery, drug trafficking, prison sentences, even being wounded or killed by gun violence become a glamorous lifestyle and something to be emulated.
The article goes on to state that 10,000 firearms are confiscated each year in Chicago, a city that does everything in it's power and then some to prevent firearms ownership. It's clearly not firearms that are the problem, but a group of people who refuse to live within the laws of this nation.
Gun control isn't the issue, the real issue is taking back our nation from those who refuse to live by our laws.
"Make it MOAR ilegaller !!!!!!1111!!!" As if those who are willing to murder actually care if you put a gun charge on top of MURDER.....
As the straw-man claimed in the article, "he did not even know what "ATF" meant" ......
..... I have two points for Mr. Straw-man:
1) Ignorance is no excuse. It might be a reason, but it does not excuse..... and
2)see my sig line.
therealdeal
New member
LawScholar, I agree w/your first post/comment 100%.
Uncle Buck
New member
^ +1
And I love 44AMPS analysis.
Enforce the laws we have, quit giving these people with a criminal past more breaks.
Straw man purchases are just a way a way for the press (and Bloomberg types) to put the blame on honest people. Mr. "I did it for a hundred dollars" has to read and sign a form that asked if he was buying it for someone else.
If I were to get drunk and run over a crowd of people while driving a Ford, would that make every Ford owner dangerous? Would it make the event any less tragic?
I do not see the gun as the problem here, I see ILLEGAL ownership of it as the problem. I see the fact that citizens are not allowed to defend themselves against the criminals who ARE allowed to defend themselves.
I was forced to spend some time in Chicago this past year and I must tell you, it is a beautiful city. When I mentioned to a security guard at the place of business I wanted to venture out and see the sights, she gave me a list of places not to go, because of the dangers involved with gangs and criminals. It is a shame.
Rifleman1776
New member
I worked for the Chicago Tribune in the late 1960's. It was, at that time, a very conservative, Constitution first, publication.
That has, sadly, changed.
That has, sadly, changed.
Last edited: