Gunfree Chicago: Two men charged for shooting UPS driver

[Indy Lurker]

Englewood is a Chicago neighborhood with about 40,000 residents, and a large amount of gang crime.

As with the rest of Chicago, It's illegal to register and own a handgun.

*************************************************************

http://www.suntimes.com/news/24-7/1683297,tw0men-charged-ups-shooting-072409.article

Two men were charged early Friday for shooting a UPS driver Tuesday morning in the South Side’s Englewood neighborhood.

James F. Thomas Jr., 19, of the 5100 block of South King Drive, and Shawn M. Scott, 17, of the 7600 block of South Stewart Avenue, were each charged at 4 a.m. Friday with one count each of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm and attempted armed robbery with a firearm, according to police News Affairs.

[baldguy]

1. No doubt stolen or purchased from a "responsible gun owner" who will never be punished.

[eqfan592]

2. THAT'S The solution!

Charge the victims of theft with a crime! Why didn't anybody think of that before????

[geckosfeet]

5. I do believe that baldguys point is,

that responsible gun owners do NOT transfer firearm ownership illegally. Since the shooter illegally possessed a firearm, one could conclude that there is at least one irresponsible gun owner who DID transfer gun ownership illegally.

Then again, the gun could have been 'stolen legitimately'.

In either case, the gun owner IS responsible.

[baldguy]

6. If they neglect to secure their weapons properly, thats exactly what should be done.

[eqfan592]

7. Because a criminal that is able to break into a home....

...would have no chance against a $100 gun safe from Dunhams.

[baldguy]

11. And our increasingly hypothetical "responsible gun owner" wouldn't use such a gun safe.

Would they?

[eqfan592]

13. Such a safe is all our "responsible gun owner" can afford.

And this "hypothetical" gun owner isn't hypothetical, it's me. Though nobody has broken into my house, thankfully.

No safe is burglar proof. But some are obviously more so than others. The best I can afford is this one. It keeps the guns out of the hands of guests in my home, and may serve as a small deterrent to a would be thief, but not much of one. Now unless you want to subsidize heavy gun safes for all gun owners in the nation, then I suggest that there is a pretty big flaw in your reasoning.

[baldguy]

17. If you can't afford to secure your weapon properly, you can't afford the weapon.

That's called "being responsible".

[eqfan592]

18. Define "secure properly" please. (nt)

[baldguy]

19. You've already done that yourself.

By your own admission, the lock box you use isn't secure.

[eqfan592]

21. Oh, I stated no such thing!

I stated that my safe isn't going to stop a determined thief. My safe is INDEED secure for 99.99999% of the other problems that may arise, and it serves it's purpose.

Unless you intend to define "secure" as never being able to be stolen, then by all rights nothing is ever secure anywhere, at any time. This is where our ability to "reason" comes into play, and I think most people would agree that a gun that is in a safe or other storage device, under lock and key, is reasonably secure.

My entire point is that even guns that are reasonably secure by the vast majority of peoples definition can still be stolen.

[baldguy]

22. Well, if you weren't being sarcastic in your previous post

& REALLY have faith that "a criminal...would have no chance against a $100 gun safe" that's just fine.

I just hope there are no children with access to tools in your household.

[eqfan592]

23. Ummm, did you read the post you replied to?

I stated clearly that I had little faith in my safe's ability to stand up to a criminal. And if there is an unsupervised child with tools running around in my house, then there are already several criminal acts taking place on my part if it is my child, thus I could no longer be labeled "responsible" by anybody. This line of reasoning does not serve your purpose well. No parent is perfect obviously, but no responsible parent would allow their children to be running around the house, with tools, unsupervised, for the length of time it would require a child to break into any sort of safe.

[baldguy]

24. Then I'll repeat: If you can't afford to secure your weapon properly, you can't afford the weapon.

If you don't think your safe would deter a criminal during a break-in then you need a different safe. And any resolute 10-yr old as at least as competent in destroying things as determined criminal.

[eqfan592]

25. A resolute 10-year old...

...is going to break into a metal safe with a key lock? Not in my house they aren't. Now a criminal could just pick the thing up and carry it out if they wanted to, and break the lock later, or they could pick it with a lock picking device, or, if they are big enough, could use a pick axe to rip it open.

These are things I don't imagine a 10 year old doing.

As for your "If you can't afford to secure your weapon properly, you can't afford the weapon" statement, you are yet to express what you define as "proper" when it comes to security. My firearms are not sitting out in the open, they are under lock and key. This is a measure that most would agree is a "properly secured" firearm. But if you want it theft proof, or even close to it, and you are not intending on providing the resources to those of us who cannot afford such "theft proof" safes, then you are not being reasonable by any measure. You are also stating that you are OK with denying the poor one of their basic civil liberties.

Ball's in your court.

[baldguy]

27. Either your safe is adequate, or it's not. It can't be both.

You conveniently change the amount of security it provides to suit your argument.

[eqfan592]

28. I have done NO such thing, sir.

You have conveniently failed to actually state what "adequate" is, by your definition. I have stated clearly what my safe can, and cannot do, without change, and have asked you to define what your idea of a "properly secured" safe is. You have failed to do so as of yet.

I am confident in my safes ability to prevent "little hands" from getting at my firearms, as well as visitors to my household. However, I have little doubt in the ability of a criminal to break into said safe, or to remove said safe from my property. Obviously, a heavier safe with a combo lock would make this more difficult, but is also prohibitively expensive at this time for me. So I would say my firearms are secure, simply not as secure as they possibly could be (though nothing is as secure as it possibly can be). I would also argue that the level of security I have provided for my firearms would be viewed as reasonable by the majority of people in the country (a storage container of sorts with access only through a lock and key being the minimum I think most would consider acceptable).

Though none of this allows for people who keep firearms in their bedrooms for home defense. I don't think these people are being criminally negligent, assuming their room remains locked when no one is in there, but that's another debate for another time, and does not apply to me as I do not do this at this time.

[baldguy]

29. Really? Your own statements belie your arguments.

Your safe "may serve as a small deterrent to a would be thief, but not much of one," but at the same time it is "secure for 99.99999%" of the time.

[eqfan592]

30. Well, given that I'm willing to assume (safely, I might add)...

...that 99.999999% of the time I won't have any home invaders (and by all rights, this will likely never happen) then yes, it IS secure in it's purpose for all other times. So I did not "belie" anything. For me to "belie" my argument I would have to have stated at some point that I thought my safe would be 100% secure, or stated that I thought it would stand up to a criminal, and then later state otherwise. Neither of these things occurred.

And yet again, you have failed to state what you feel is "secure" enough, unless you just want to go with "if it can be stolen, it's not secure." In that case, then you are promoting total firearms confiscation, as a 100% perfection rating is next to impossible when it comes to security from a thief.

[slackmaster]

38. No baldguy, YOU are the one who is doing that

You view the fact of a stolen gun as proof that it wasn't secured properly.

[baldguy]

45. Now, you're getting it!

If something gets stolen, it was - by definition NOT SECURE. For most consumer products, it's not very critical, but firearms are and should treated differently. They unlike any other consumer product in that their sole function is to kill. Responsible guns owners acknowledge this & take steps to secure their weapons when not in use and ensure that they can't ever be used by unauthorized persons.

Anything less shows a reckless disregard for public safety.

[eqfan592]

46. Actually, you're wrong.

Stating that something was not secure simply because it was stolen is a logical fallacy. It would be more accurate to state that a thief managed to circumvent the security measures that were taken (if any were taken at all, and for the sake of our argument, they were).

By your definition, no firearms owner is responsible because a perfectly secure system has yet to be invented.

You can continue to back yourself into a corner if you want baldguy, or you can finally admit that even a firearm that is secured by the "gold standard" is still vulnerable to theft.

[slackmaster]

61. How do you feel about stolen cars?

Would you criminalize people who have their cars stolen, and subsequently used in crimes?

[gorfle]

40. It's adequate enough for California.

Read a little further down in the threads and you will see a link to his safe. It is advertised as being CDOJ approved, which means it meets the California Department of Justice requirements for firearm storage. This would likely be the sort of metric used for any owner liability laws.

The fact is, though, that these sorts of gun safes aren't much more rugged than your average lockable office supply cabinet, which is basically what they are. You could break into one in about 5 minutes with a crowbar or a hammer and chisel.

[Taitertots]

56. No 10 year old is as competent in destroying things as a determined criminal

Determined criminals have broken into safes in banks. There is no safe in the world that is burglary proof.

The free trigger locks that they give away when you buy a gun are more than enough for most 10 year olds.

[S_B_Jackson]

70. Could you define what constitutes a "secure lock box"?

Since you're so knowledgeable on the subject...and intent upon defining what does or does not constitute "responsible" gun ownership.

[gorfle]

31. Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8WRDY0dOkE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M

Then check this out:

http://www.safeandvaultstore.com/content/burg_ratings

The California Department of Justice Burglary Rating is the minimum standard for firearm safes, and most people who buy safes are going to be getting safes that meet this minimum standard. These safes are going to cost you between $300 and $600.

If you want a safe guaranteed to take at least 15 minutes to break into (TL-15), you're looking at something between $4000 and $9000.

Your average new handgun is going to cost at least $350. One notable exception is the HiPoint C9, which is a quality 9mm handgun that retails for about $100.

Considering that any gun safe under $1500 is probably not going to provide much more protection than keeping curious kids away, I'd say that it's unreasonable to hold firearm owners accountable for firearm theft. If it's in a locked home, that is about as good as you can expect most people to be able to afford. If you are going to start requiring $1500+ gun safes as a condition of firearm ownership, I think that places firearm ownership out of the reach of a lot of vulnerable people.

I personally think putting a handgun inside a $200 gun vault ( www.gunvault.com ) is a reasonable expectation. But it isn't going to do much against theft.

[eqfan592]

33. One of those gun vaults...

...is on the top of my priority list. I want to be able to have a handgun in the bedroom, but I don't like the idea of having a loaded firearm in the house without it being secured in some way. These seem like a great way to secure the firearms while offering almost instant access.

For the record, this is close to what I have right now, though mine wasn't as expensive as this one (120 range).

http://stack-on.com/securityplus/gun_cabinets_and_pistol_boxes/gc-908-5.html

[gorfle]

36. Meets California DOJ requirements.

Your gun safe, believe it or not, claims to be CDOJ approved. This means it meets California's minimum requirements for safe firearm storage. This means it should satisfy BaldGuy.

Thanks for the link. I have been wanting to get a cheap gun safe to keep my many rifles and shotguns out of reach of my kids. My oldest is now almost 4 and getting to the age where they could get to them and mess with them.

Dicks Sporting Goods has a 14-gun version of your safe for $180:

http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=3410544

I'm going to get one this weekend.

It probably won't do much for theft protection, but it will keep kids out of them.

[eqfan592]

37. No problem, and thank you...

...for pointing out that it's CDOJ approved. :) I've been thinking about getting a new one myself. Stack on now makes one that is 8-10 guns (can't remember exact number) that also has another locking door to store ammo, so it's like to cabinets in one. It's in the same price range as the one you're looking at.

As for satisfying baldguy, I'm not sure. One could only hope though. ;)

[Hoopla Phil]

43. Be sure to anchor it to the floor. Many thefts involve taking the locked

safe and opening it later. Remember, nothing is fool proof, the idea is to make it as hard as possible for the thief so s/he moves on to an easier target.

[yodoobo]

41. Only 15 minutes to break into it? That doesn't sound very secure

If a $9,000 safe only provides 15 minutes of protection, what does a $300 safe provide?

Considering the carnage that guns cause, ESPECIALLY stolen ones, it would seem reasonable to secure them in a safe that will last longer than 15 minutes.

I would expect that a handgun or assault rifle should be protected for at bare minimum of 60 minutes of robbery time, although I could only imagine how expensive that may be.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. The TL-15 rating is 15 minutes for a properly equipped safe cracker that

knows what s/he is doing. That would include blow torches, plasma cutters, impact drills, etc. I common thief with a crow bar and pry bar are not going to get into a TL-15 rated safe with those tools.

[eqfan592]

51. Yeah, that's true.

When they do those safe ratings, the crackers have every instrument they could ever want at their disposal. Still, though, a TL-15 safe seems like an extreme requirement for gun owners, given their expense. (I'm not stating that this is what you are promoting, Hoopla).

[Hoopla Phil]

55. You are correct. I think the

I think the standards for residence containers/safes is more than acceptable. I just got lucky when I snagged my TL-15.

I paid $500 for it, $600 for it to me moved, and another $400 for all the stuff to make the inside a nice "gun" safe. It measures 72 x 36 x 36 inches on the outside and has a wall thickness of 1 inch with a door thickness of 1.5 inches. Brown Safe company has one slightly smaller for $7,500.00.

http://www.brownsafe.com/features_Fire_&_Burglary_Safes/F&B_sizes_SingleDoor.html

This of course is not a reasonable safe for a person to have for their firearms. It is rather over the top for a home safe and the price is extremely prohibitive. Lets not even talk about the foundation requirement to handle the weight of this monster either, lol.

The standards that CA has come up with are reasonable but had a negative affect on the gun safe market. Prior to the CA standard many safe companies were in a competition to see who could make the strongest safe with the most steel for the lowest price. Since the CA standards went into affect gun safe manufacturers pulled back on how much steel was in the safe and focused on fire proofing (it's much cheaper). Take a look at an old top end Fort Knox safe prior to the CA standard and compare it to a top end now. You'll be amazed at the difference.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. WOW! Thanks for those videos. Did you notice in the

second video that the Graffunder safes looked like TL-15's?

I picked up a big TL-15 from a bank that was going out of business many years ago. It has a 1 in. steel body and 1.5 inch steel door. It cost me more to have it moved than it did to buy the thing. LOL

[JonQ]

67. Rights should be limited to the upper class then?

If you can't afford the poll tax you can't afford to vote. That's called being responsible.

If you can't afford to own a newspaper company then you can't afford to have freedom of speech. That's called being responsible.

If you can't afford a lawyer then you aren't entitled to legal defense. That's called being responsible.

Funny because the people most needing self-defense would be those living in the poorer parts of the country, more crime riddled and all that. I don't suppose those parts are filled with aristocrats, but rather poor people.

[Xenotime]

66. If they didn't have a gun, no need for a safe, no need to break in

[PavePusher]

69. And everyone who doesn't own guns...

...should put up a sign on their front door/yard declaring this, so the thugs will know which houses to not waste their time on.

Right...

[Xenotime]

65. Sounds good to me. I think I should suggest that to our DA.

[geckosfeet]

4. No doubt.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

8. I don't think...

...posting several different articles about a similar topic equates to "spamming."

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Been a troll since the beginning no doubt.

[virginia mountainman]

20. Do you kiss your momma with that mouth?!

Remember what Thumper's mom told him...

ROFLMAO!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

47. If you've been here since the beginning, why have you never read the rules?

Hmm?

[iverglas]

58. you are speaking to the person who was called a troll???

Hmm???

[AtheistCrusader]

60. See post 3.

There's an alert button. Use it.

[iverglas]

62. "There's an alert button. Use it."

I did. That's why the post in which the poster was called a troll was no longer there when you voiced your exception.

Calling someone a troll is not an appropriate response to an allegation of spamming. Calling someone an asshole is an appropriate response to being called a troll.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. The one I responded to

was the 4th post, but 1st poster to start slinging the accusation. Kinda hard to see now though..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. So if I look will I see you protesting Shares posts or will I find you to be a hypocrite?

[virginia mountainman]

9. Too bad Daley's Body Gaurds where not close by... NT

[iverglas]

16. and your conclusion / proposal for ameliorating this problem would be?

Oh, that's right.

Nothing.

These things happen. Too bad, so sad.

[tortoise1956]

26. Depends on what problem you're talking about...

If you mean the shooting, the simple answer is to enforce the laws on the books as written. That means that:

The DA doesn't plea bargain down to a lesser offence
If convicted, the shooters serve the entire sentence

That is a good start towards making it less appealing to do the crime. However, I hold out little hope of either of these happening.

As for Baldguy, I wonder if he would feel the same way if someone stole his car (through no fault of his own) and killed a pedestrian, and he was charged with criminal negligence for not properly securing the vehicle. That makes just as much sense as charging a gun owner for someone stealing his property from his private residence.

[iverglas]

39. another expert

If you mean the shooting, the simple answer is to enforce the laws on the books as written. That means that:

The DA doesn't plea bargain down to a lesser offence
If convicted, the shooters serve the entire sentence

So, the individual who is dead is still dead. That ameliorates that situation a whole bunch, don't it?


You folks do love the general deterrence theory. Actually, you really just love blaming and punishing. But you hang your hats on the general deterrence theory:

That is a good start towards making it less appealing to do the crime.

I'll bet cutting off hands would work even better.

Mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws have worked wonders for you, haven't they? Well, they have for the private prison industry, anyhow.


I'll take my criminology from real experts, ta. (Even though I've published in the field, I'm not really a real expert.)

And they say you're spouting bullshit.


Anyone who actually cares about a harm advocates action to reduce the risk of the harm occurring.

Punishing someone once it has occurred really just doesn't cut it in that regard.

[TheWraith]

48. So what's the alternative? Lock everybody up before they can do anything?

Unless you can magically determine who is going to commit a crime and who isn't, there is NO way to prevent somebody from committing a crime short of having the police follow them around 24/7. Britain proved that getting rid of guns didn't work, which anybody with an IQ could have told you in advance, and now they're trying to ban kitchen knives. People have managed to kill each other going back centuries before we had mass manufactured weapons. So no matter how somebody chooses to commit a crime, the person who's dead is still dead.

[iverglas]

52. Yes, that's it! Lock everybody up! That's the ONLY alternative!!

[iverglas]

53. get a fucking grip / give it up

now they're trying to ban kitchen knives

You and a number of others seem to find it entertaining to type these words. You/they have been doing it for a couple of years now.

Who is this THEY?

You mean some people/organizations who have recommended measures that might reduce the incidence and severity of the harm caused by people using knives?

And when, exactly, in any event, did any of them TRY TO BAN KITCHEN KNIVES?

I know it's the Guns forum, so I know there's no onus on anyone to be honest or base what they say on actual facts. But please don't expect that when you spew shit it won't be noticed, and noted.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

64. Ban kitchen knives?

What sort of nonsense did you read that from?

Kitchen knives are NOT banned here, just restricted purchase (only 18 and above can purchase one).

[iverglas]

71. whaddayou know, eh?

You only live there. ;)

Our friends here, unlike you, are experts about everything everywhere in the world.

Why, they can dredge up 20-yr-old statistics from Australia at the drop of a hat ... and very often do.

Don't you know that there were 52 FIREARMS HOMICIDES in England & Wales just the other year??

FIFTY-TWO. How can that be, when "guns are banned"??

You need to catch up. There are TEN THOUSAND firearms homicides a year in the US. And that has NOTHING TO DO with how easy it is to get a gun there.

Because it's just as easy to get a gun in the UK. Yes it is. Just ask our friends here!

People in the UK just find using the things to commit homicide not quite quite. That's it.

[Indy Lurker]

34. The solution

The solution is to lock up the violent criminals and keep them locked up.


Guns are not the problem. Criminals are the problem.


This is why places like Vermont with far fewer gun law have less crime, and places like Chicago with strict gun law have a great deal of crime.

The guns in Vermont are identical to the guns in Chicago (despite the ban).

The difference is not the guns.

The difference is not the laws.

The difference is the criminals.

[JonQ]

68. Rethinking our drug policy

would go a long ways towards reducing gang related crimes as well.

I'd also favor mandatory minimum sentences for any crime involving a firearm, even if it wasn't actually fired.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Find out where they obtained the gun.

See if there's something to be done about the source.

[iverglas]

54. and of course

Find out where they obtained the gun.

Make it as hard as humanly possible to do that.


I mean: require that legal owners register their firearms?
Require that transfers of those firearms be registered?


Noooooooo.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I'd sign up for registration, and register every last firearm I own today IF

I could get ironclad guarantee none of my firearms will be post-facto banned and collected.

Give me that, and I will happily register all of my firearms.

[russ1943]

32. Better than some less restrictive cities.

With Chicago being the subject of at least three separate threads, I would guess you are making the point that restrictive gun laws haven’t solved the problem of gun violence. That’s true of course, but it isn’t known what the gun death rate might be without those gun laws.
Chicago being one of the largest cities in the country has been called murder capital but that’s in numbers. States that have less restrictive gun laws like Texas and say Florida, have Houston, Dallas, Miami and Orlando all/each have higher murder rates than Chicago.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08.html (2007 figures)

Illinois is ranked pretty low at 8.1 per 100,000 for deaths by firearms. That’s below the national average(10.3) and less than half of Mississippi(16.3), Alaska(16.6), Alabama(17), and Louisiana(19.4) and lower than another 30 or so states.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf (2006 figures, published April 2009)

[Indy Lurker]

35. Not all of Chicago

Just one neighborhood of Chicago with 40,000 residents.


Granted it's gang central, but there are still honest citizens there who call it home.

The three threads I posted are for shootings that happened over about a week.

Can you imagine trying to live in a town of 40,000 that had one or two shootings a week?

[TheWraith]

50. That nonsense reminds me of the Bush administration justifying Iraq.

"Well, it's bad, but imagine how much more terrible it would be if we HADN'T taken action!"

Flip it around: there is no evidence, none at all, that the murder rate in Chicago would be higher if legal guns weren't banned. For that matter, the same FBI statistics that you cite show that the vast majority of murders are committed with illegal guns to begin with, which are completely unaffected by bans. And it's worth taking into account that Dallas, Miami, and Orlando are all cities much more involved in the pipeline of illegal drug smuggling from South America--but that would require acknowledging that most of our crime problem in America is caused by the failed drug war, rather than conveniently blaming it on guns.

[iverglas]

57. and yours reminds me of what five-year-olds say

Have you checked out Birmingham lately?

2003: http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Birmingham&state=AL

City Population: 240,176
Murder: 85

That's a rate of 35/100,000. Maybe you could identify those murders by neighbourhood for us too.

2007:

City population: 227,686
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: 86

About the same then.


How about Huntsville, also in Alabama? 2007:

City population: 169,391
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 21

That's more than 12/100,000.


Alabama get an A from the VPC for firearms control laws, does it?



Flip it around: there is no evidence, none at all, that the murder rate in Chicago would be higher if legal guns weren't banned.

What does "if legal guns weren't banned" mean? Please try to make sense. Making sense may be different from spitting out random words from the gun militant agenda, but that's life.

So how about: is there evidence that the murder rate in Chicago would be lower if existing legislation had not been in place? The same?

No? So can you explain your point?

There is no evidence that things would be different if things had been different. Hmm. May I quote you?


For that matter, the same FBI statistics that you cite show that the vast majority of murders are committed with illegal guns to begin with, which are completely unaffected by bans.

Blah de blah de fucking blah de blah blah blah.

How does a gun become illegal?