ChiGoose

Sure I can. But maybe if there are so many mentally ill people running around that you all blame for these shootings, we should make it so that they can’t get a gun .

A cheeseburger has never gunned down a bunch of kids at a school. A mentally ill person who can’t get a gun can’t shoot up a mall.

1. No, you won’t have nearly as many killings because guns are way more effective at killing people than most anything else available 2. It’s the GOP who continue to oppose or cut mental health spending.

The shootings won’t be

Maybe we should outlaw divorce. That should solve crime!

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Violence interrupters are essentially social service case workers. While some may have law enforcement background, that’s not what the job is. It’s to get involved in the lives of at-risk youths BEFORE they commit crimes to stop the pipeline of youth to criminals and allow law enforcement to focus on actual criminals. “Tough on crime” policies do not solve crime.

Still can’t get me out of your head, huh? 😘

Another GOP position: intentionally tank the economy when it is politically convenient.

Young kids on the streets who see their best option for success or money is through gangs and crimes is a good starting point for actually preventing violence. Targeting them with violence interrupters, stronger wraparound services, mental health services, education, vocational training, and even jobs would do a lot to reduce the violence. All of those interventions can be done before they pick up their first gun and without requiring additional police officers. And it would have a much greater impact on reducing crime than simply hiring more cops or being “tough on crime.”

So here’s a fun fact: Illinois does not enforce the law in Indiana. If Indiana has no problem with sales of guns that are legal at the time later being used in crimes outside of the state, there isn’t an ton Illinois can do. I agree we should focus far more on handguns. But the GOP doesn’t actually care about people being killed by guns and the Dems are mostly activated by mass shootings which disproportionately involve long guns. There’s no panacea that will fix this. No single policy that will stop these shootings. But by enacting a variety of measures, you can start to reduce the deaths. Or you can just oppose any action, propose nothing and be totally ok with kids getting their faces blown off. Whatever floats your boat, buddy.

Man, you were *so close* to making a good point. But then you had to veer off to the usual nonsense. Maybe next time you’ll figure it out. I wouldn’t bet on it though. Just absolute brain worms nonsense to say that people don’t care about this. How gullible do you have to be to believe this crap?

The problem with the gun control conversation from the left is that we are now so politically sorted that there isn’t widespread gun ownership on the left. Therefore, when they see these tragedies and want to propose solutions they often aren’t coming from a place of strong knowledge around firearms. The thing to do to actually reduce these deaths would be for gun owners who are knowledgeable to propose effective solutions. But it’s become such a cultural touch point that they incorrectly assume that any restriction is bad. I do enjoy how much people love to show their ignorance on here. 60% of the guns used in crimes in Chicago are from out of state. One store in Indiana alone is responsible for over 800 guns recovered from crime scenes here. The gun control laws here are effective enough that criminals have to leave the state to get their guns. It’s states like Wisconsin and Indiana that are driving the shootings here. There are dozens of proposals that would reduce gun deaths that aren’t a ban. Just because you’re too lazy to look for them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Classic deflection. When you’re talking about what to do *after* a shooting, you’re not talking about preventing the next one. You just want to distract and shift blame. Charge every single person who has a gun illegally and you won’t stop this. You’ll barely put a dent into it. These people aren’t scared of jail time and many of the mass shooters go into it with the specific intent to die. What scary consequence could deter them? Maybe, just maybe, if there are all these bad guys and mentally ill people running around, we stop them from getting guns in the first place. Just a thought.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the reason we have so many gun deaths and shootings is because of the availability of guns, the usual crowd still resorts to claiming that Americans are significantly more mentally ill than other countries and also somehow it’s the Dems’ fault. Introspection seems impossible, so I guess we’ll just keep letting kids get their faces blown off and needing DNA to identify the multilateral child corpses.

Why are people who choose to do this able to get their hands on a gun?

You ask a lot of questions but don’t try to answer them yourself, why? In any event, Switzerland has strict licensing requirements, about 25% of the guns are for military or police purposes, the laws are designed to prevent violent people from obtaining a gun, and it’s very difficult to get a permit to carry your gun so most are left at home. In addition to that, despite the stricter gun laws than we have here, Switzerland still has a higher rate of gun deaths than most European countries. Because, as you should know by now, more guns means more gun deaths. Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

The “good guy with a gun” thing is a myth. It plays out so rarely, and when it does, many people are likely already dead before it does. Uvalde, Buffalo Shootings Expose the Myth of the ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ “From 2000-2019, 119 of 345 active shooters committed suicide, the bureau said in a long-trend report. Another 119 were apprehended by police, 67 were killed by police, and five are at large. In only four cases did citizens kill the shooters – and none of those four happened at an educational setting.” The ONLY thing that will start to curb the number of these tragedies is stricter gun control. But that’s more upsetting to too many Americans than dead kids with their faces blown off to actually happen.

Man who witnessed Allen outlet mall shooting describes carnage: 'It's just unfathomable' “The first girl I walked up to was crouched down covering her head in the bushes, so I felt for a pulse, pulled her head to the side and she had no face." We are the only rich country in the world that regularly goes through this and the GOP is fighting like hell to make sure we keep doing it.

Well, considering the second amendment was written in the context of utilizing state militias to counterbalance any free standing federal army, I’d hope that you at least belong to your state militia if you’d like to fully avail yourself of your constitutional rights. Just remember, the individual right to own a gun under the law isn’t yet old enough to vote.

Which well regulated militia do you belong to?

Come and visit. None of those things will happen to you. If you want to experience those, I suggest St. Louis or New Orleans. Sometimes I wonder if all of the people here crapping on Chicago with absolutely no first hand knowledge just nod in agreement when national media craps on Buffalo. I mean, they’d have to if they were intellectually consistent, right?

26 Things To Do In Chicago This Weekend: A Cinco De Mayo Bar Crawl, Hafla Dance Party, Pullman Walking Tour And More Tons of cool things happening here this weekend. Because, once again, the Chicago you are all seeing in the “news” is not the Chicago as it actually exists.

I wonder if they end up filing sanctions against the lawyer that originally didn’t even tell their own clients that the immunity deals were on the table.

Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni’ "In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case. Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25K,” the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have “No mention of Ginni, of course.” Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, sent the Judicial Education Project a $25,000 bill that day. Per Leo’s instructions, it listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting,” the documents show. In all, according to the documents, the Polling Company paid Thomas’s firm, Liberty Consulting, $80,000 between June 2011 and June 2012, and it expected to pay $20,000 more before the end of 2012. The documents reviewed by The Post do not indicate the precise nature of any work Thomas did for the Judicial Education Project or the Polling Company." And before the usual crowd tries to spin this into something it's not: it's totally fine for the wife of a Supreme Court Justice to have a job, even one that is in the same legal realm as the Court. But their work should be aboveboard with clear disclosures on where the money comes from. Having a judicial activism organization that picks the nominees for the court and tries to influence the Court's decisions also secretly bankroll the spouse of a member of the court certainly *looks* like corruption. Maybe these kinds of payments should be required to be public so the American people can know where there may be potential conflicts of interest.

Well, yeah. I don't worry about made up things.