"Mutual Combat" is OK in Chicago

miamited · Oct 16, 2021

renniks said:
There goes the argument against " assault rifles".

Hi @renniks

When one actually reads the data supplied by the FBI in these statistics, it becomes quickly apparent that their numbers are likely not correct. According to their own accounting, some 30% of the gun deaths that are reported to them do not state the type of weapon used. This comes from the FBI report: The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”

To use this data to determine just how many assault rifles are actually used, then someone's got to go in and find out about that 30%.

God bless,
Ted

miamited · Oct 16, 2021

renniks said:
When you have used a gun all your life since about 10 years old and depend on them for food and such, yes losing them is losing freedom.
They are in the tool kit of most rural people and we don't need any more restrictions. In my state about 500000 hunters hit the woods opening day.
Most years you have about 1 accidental fatality. Obviously the guns aren't randomly killing people.

Hi @renniks

Don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that 'guns aren't randomly killing people'. Certainly not myself.

Listen, it's fine and I'm quite sure that the U.S. will continue to be the murder capital of the world, but I'm just making the point that we don't have to be. I actually have no problem with people owning 'reasonable' hunting firearms. This would be single shot long barrel rifles and shotguns. It's the handguns and semi or automatic firearms that are the real problem for us. But, I also understand that there's a mentality out there that says that pretty much any kind of restriction on one's owning whatever kind of firearm that he wants to own, is an abridgement of freedom. I get it. I just know that it doesn't have to be that way and will always champion, what I believe to be the more reasonable way for mankind to deal with a weapon that has such unbridled power to kill people. But the U.S. has been a murderous nation now for some 150 years, at least, and I'm pragmatic enough to know that's not likely to change.

God bless,
Ted

renniks · Oct 16, 2021

miamited said:
Hi @renniks

When one actually reads the data supplied by the FBI in these statistics, it becomes quickly apparent that their numbers are likely not correct. According to their own accounting, some 30% of the gun deaths that are reported to them do not state the type of weapon used. This comes from the FBI report: The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”

To use this data to determine just how many assault rifles are actually used, then someone's got to go in and find out about that 30%.

God bless,
Ted

First you would have to define "assault rifle" because the definition is basically any semi auto rifle that looks military. It's not based on the gun being any more lethal than any other gun.

renniks · Oct 16, 2021

miamited said:
Hi @renniks

Don't think anyone's trying to make the argument that 'guns aren't randomly killing people'. Certainly not myself.

Listen, it's fine and I'm quite sure that the U.S. will continue to be the murder capital of the world, but I'm just making the point that we don't have to be. I actually have no problem with people owning 'reasonable' hunting firearms. This would be single shot long barrel rifles and shotguns. It's the handguns and semi or automatic firearms that are the real problem for us. But, I also understand that there's a mentality out there that says that pretty much any kind of restriction on one's owning whatever kind of firearm that he wants to own, is an abridgement of freedom. I get it. I just know that it doesn't have to be that way and will always champion, what I believe to be the more reasonable way for mankind to deal with a weapon that has such unbridled power to kill people. But the U.S. has been a murderous nation now for some 150 years, at least, and I'm pragmatic enough to know that's not likely to change.

God bless,
Ted

The gun that's the most lethal is the one in the hands of someone who is the most capable. A sniper in the right spot with a single shot is gonna be more lethal than the spray and pray types with semi autos.
And yes, taking any of them away is a restriction of our rights. The same thing that makes a handgun an effective tool for crimes makes it a good choice for self defense.

miamited · Oct 16, 2021

renniks said:
First you would have to define "assault rifle" because the definition is basically any semi auto rifle that looks military. It's not based on the gun being any more lethal than any other gun.

Hi @renniks

No, I don't have to define anything. I don't understand this point that 'it's not based on the gun being any more lethal than any other gun.' Who cares that one firearm is not any more lethal than another. IT'S LETHAL!!!!!!! Who cares about it being 'anymore' lethal. Please explain, exactly 'why' do I need to define "assault rifle"?

renniks said:
The gun that's the most lethal is the one in the hands of someone who is the most capable. A sniper in the right spot with a single shot is gonna be more lethal than the spray and pray types with semi autos.
And yes, taking any of them away is a restriction of our rights. The same thing that makes a handgun an effective tool for crimes makes it a good choice for self defense.

You're really caught up on this 'lethality' issue, huh? Firearms kill. One doesn't have to be anymore lethal than another. And yes, I've already said that I understand that there is a certain segment of our society that says: And yes, taking any of them away is a restriction of our rights.

Got it! Have a nice life.

God bless,
Ted

dqhall · Oct 16, 2021

renniks said:
Chicago does have strict gun laws. Listen closely: Gangs of criminals don't care about laws, as evidenced by the fact that they are killing each other. Newsflash: murder is already against the law.

In the U.K. there is much less murder and assault rifles are banned there. How is this possible as some gun owners claim their guns protect them?

JimR-OCDS · Oct 17, 2021

miamited said:
@JimR-OCDS

For the record, your link is an opinion piece with very little in the way of facts to tie his argument of the 'welfare state' as being the cause of fatherlessness among children. In fact, his argument seems to be making the point that this issue is a predominantly black issue, and quite frankly, I know tons of white mothers nursing babies who refer to the father as being some 'baby daddy' living with some other family or still out romping around. Trust me, the root cause of fatherless babies is 'sex'. Without 'sex' there are no babies either fatherless or fathered.

The writer seems to think all this changed when welfare came on board, but it's also true that the sexual revolution was going gangbusters about the same time. The 60's and 70's was the generation of free love and lots of sex. That hasn't changed much since it began.

God bless,
Ted

Yours too is just an opinion. However, Thomas Sowell makes his opinion using facts.
He is a professor at Stanford U. and a black man who in the article, presents
the facts of what life for blacks was like in the 1950's and 60's compared to today.

The welfare state began the decline in the black families, there is no doubt about it.

I agree with you that it's the breakdown of moral values which is now plaguing society, in general, but the illegitimate birth rate among blacks is 69.4 %, that is a fact.

See for yourself;

For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups (these never vary by more than a percentage point or two each year, by the way). For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

Birth control is equally available to all racial groups, but the birth rates are significantly higher in black communities than in white communities.

Why is that ? Thomas Sowell in the article I linked, explained why.

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

miamited said:
No, I don't have to define anything. I don't understand this point that 'it's not based on the gun being any more lethal than any other gun.' Who cares that one firearm is not any more lethal than another. IT'S LETHAL!!!!!!! Who cares about it being 'anymore' lethal. Please explain, exactly 'why' do I need to define "assault rifle"?

Because you can not ban them if you don't even know what they are.

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

miamited said:
You're really caught up on this 'lethality' issue, huh? Firearms kill. One doesn't have to be anymore lethal than another. And yes, I've already said that I understand that there is a certain segment of our society that says: And yes, taking any of them away is a restriction of our rights.

You haven't made any sense about why you want to ban some guns and not others. Which is why those of us in this segment of society believe that the actual goal is a total ban.

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

dqhall said:
In the U.K. there is much less murder and assault rifles are banned there. How is this possible as some gun owners claim their guns protect them?

First:
While the US has the most guns per capita, it does not have the highest rate of gun ownership.
And the UK has a much higher violent crime rate overall.
As far as homicides, it's hard to get a clear picture because the US and the UK report them differently. In the USA if there's a dead body, even if no one knows who killed them it is called a murder. In the UK, only solved murders are reported. See the difference?
For example:
In 2011 329 people in the UK died from "assault", 27 by poisoning, 361 by strangulation, 127 by non-accidental or suicidal drowning, 7 with guns, 2 with explosives, 20 by stabbing, 62 pushed from a high place, 21 run over, and another 198 of "other specified events in various places" .

That's 1154 violent deaths which would in the US be reported as murders.
So if you lock up all the guns in the US, denying anyone the right to self defense, ( which is impossible without a gestapo type violent police action nation wide, we aren't going to just turn our guns in), sure you might have less death by firearms. But not necessarily less homicides.

dqhall · Oct 17, 2021

renniks said:
First:
While the US has the most guns per capita, it does not have the highest rate of gun ownership.
And the UK has a much higher violent crime rate overall.
As far as homicides, it's hard to get a clear picture because the US and the UK report them differently. In the USA if there's a dead body, even if no one knows who killed them it is called a murder. In the UK, only solved murders are reported. See the difference?
For example:
In 2011 329 people in the UK died from "assault", 27 by poisoning, 361 by strangulation, 127 by non-accidental or suicidal drowning, 7 with guns, 2 with explosives, 20 by stabbing, 62 pushed from a high place, 21 run over, and another 198 of "other specified events in various places" .

That's 1154 violent deaths which would in the US be reported as murders.
So if you lock up all the guns in the US, denying anyone the right to self defense, ( which is impossible without a gestapo type violent police action nation wide, we aren't going to just turn our guns in), sure you might have less death by firearms. But not necessarily less homicides.

Last year there were 600 murders in the U.K.
There were over 21,000 murders in the U.S. in 2020.

US records largest annual increase in murders in six decades

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

dqhall said:
Last year there were 600 murders in the U.K.
There were over 21,000 murders in the U.S. in 2020.

US records largest annual increase in murders in six decades

Ah yes the wonderful peaceful UK!

The violent crime rate in Britain continues to rise. Britain's ONS show the violent crime rate increased to 2,700 per 100,000 people

(27 per 1,000 population) in 2017, see Table 2a: Crime Survey for England and Wales incidence rates and number of incidents for year ending December 2017 and percentage change. The number of violent incidents recorded by the police increased to 1,245,000 while there were 175,000 robberies.

The hundreds of million guns in America avert several million violent crimes per year, while the lack of guns in Britain mean their law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves. So there are no defensive gun uses in England and Wales - no wonder their violent crime rate is MANY TIMES HIGHER than America!

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

dqhall said:
Last year there were 600 murders in the U.K.
There were over 21,000 murders in the U.S. in 2020.

US records largest annual increase in murders in six decades

A recent FBI report that surveyed local police departments found that 48% of violent crime, on average in the USA, was related to gang activity. In some jurisdictions, as much as 90% of violent crime was related to gang activity.

Yes we have a few very dangerous places to live in the US, due to our failure to eliminate gangs, instead we handle them with kid gloves so we don't get called racist. But the majority of the country is actually safer than other countries.

And the places with gang activity already have tough gun laws which only inhibits the honest citizens in those places. It doesn't stop gangs from killing each other with illegal guns.

hedrick · Oct 17, 2021

Here's an article giving more information: https://www.courthousenews.com/chic...y-butt-heads-over-fatal-shooting-prosecution/. Apparently "mutual combat" is actually part of Illinois law. It prevents murder charges, though it depends upon details of the situation.

There's an argument between the mayor and prosecutor. The prosecutor's office doesn't want to issue charges until they have enough evidence for a conviction. They feel they don't yet. The mutual combat doctrine complicates the investigation, because for murder charges they need evidence to show that the doctrine doesn't apply.

miamited · Oct 17, 2021

renniks said:
You haven't made any sense about why you want to ban some guns and not others. Which is why those of us in this segment of society believe that the actual goal is a total ban.

Hi @renniks

I don't think that I ever did say anything about my feelings of the various types of firearms and the banning thereof. The article from the OP does make that distinction. I think my statement was that all firearms are lethal.

renniks said:
Because you can not ban them if you don't even know what they are.

Really?? That sounds so much like an argument of nonsense that is just kind of flung out there because ...well, uh, ...it sounds good? In any bill destined to ban any firearms, there will be, just as there always is, a definition of terms. That's something that is worked out during the back and forth of weighing the bill. If you've ever read many Legislative bills, on most of them there are chapters that deal with "definition of terms".

God bless,
Ted

HannahT · Oct 17, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
Gang Shooting in Chicago is now OK. Well technically it's not prosecuted.

It makes me wonder if this is one of those things that is done because of all the talk of minorities in gangs going to prison and the way to fix it is to just not enforce the laws on the books, kind of like what Liberals do with other problems like: allowing a mass influx of illegal aliens, not enforcing regulations on homelessness encampments, enabling drug addiction among the homeless, and not prosecuting shop lifting since Covid in many big cities.

'Mutual Combat': Chicago Prosecutor Won't Charge Five Gang Members Involved in Deadly Shootout - The Truth About Guns

Prosecutors reject charges for 5 suspects involved in deadly Chicago shootout, cite mutual combat: Report

The Mutual Combat approach is rather stupid.

I know Mayor Lightfoot is pushing this circumstance for prosecution, because its dangerous. I hope she gets it too.

"It (mutual combat) doesn't eliminate criminal culpability," Soffer said. "What it means is if someone is charged with first-degree murder, they can give a mitigating defense, which says 'look it was mutual combat, we agreed to have a fight.'"

I mean at the simplest of terms according to the above statement? It means if two gangs decide to have a gunfight? It's mutual and there are to many mitigating circumstances to iron it out. So, they ignore it.

If they feel this is a smart legal approach? They need to find a field somewhere that no one that innocent in the neighbor can be hit with gunfire, and allow them to go at it. No doubt you will get those that 'agreed to have a fight' and tons of mitigating circumstances/defense there too.

I mean the statement above says their actions doesn't eliminate criminal culpability, but you have to wonder where it is then. The fact that having a gang war with guns in a neighborhood isn't classified as illegal? People can cry about gun control forever, and they will be aiming in the wrong direction. Remember the gun fight wasn't chargeable. The citizens of that neighborhood deserve better, but they never seem to get what they deserve. It's been generations of the population and government that are still in the same place, and the powers that be should be a ashamed.

hedrick · Oct 17, 2021

HannahT said:
The Mutual Combat approach is rather stupid.

I know Mayor Lightfoot is pushing this circumstance for prosecution, because its dangerous. I hope she gets it too.

"It (mutual combat) doesn't eliminate criminal culpability," Soffer said. "What it means is if someone is charged with first-degree murder, they can give a mitigating defense, which says 'look it was mutual combat, we agreed to have a fight.'"

I mean at the simplest of terms according to the above statement? It means if two gangs decide to have a gunfight? It's mutual and there are to many mitigating circumstances to iron it out. So, they ignore it.

If they feel this is a smart legal approach? They need to find a field somewhere that no one that innocent in the neighbor can be hit with gunfire, and allow them to go at it. No doubt you will get those that 'agreed to have a fight' and tons of mitigating circumstances/defense there too.

I mean the statement above says their actions doesn't eliminate criminal culpability, but you have to wonder where it is then. The fact that having a gang war with guns in a neighborhood isn't classified as illegal? People can cry about gun control forever, and they will be aiming in the wrong direction. Remember the gun fight wasn't chargeable. The citizens of that neighborhood deserve better, but they never seem to get what they deserve. It's been generations of the population and government that are still in the same place, and the powers that be should be a ashamed.

My impression from the article is that there are things other than murder that they charge people with. There are also limits to the mutual combat defense, so they may yet find it possible to charge them with murder.

Pavel Mosko · Oct 17, 2021

HannahT said:
The Mutual Combat approach is rather stupid.

Yes this kind of thing could open up the city or state to a lawsuit by virtue of not upholding the law, the rights of its citizens or creating a climate where crime is perceived to be acceptable.

HannahT · Oct 17, 2021

hedrick said:
My impression from the article is that there are things other than murder that they charge people with. There are also limits to the mutual combat defense, so they may yet find it possible to charge them with murder.

Kim Foxx and Lori Lightfoot can be on different pages with these types of legal approaches. Personally? I don't care for either, but that has nothing to do with this.

They are playing politics with people's life's here. That's NOT uncommon in this city. Gang wars are the norm, and have been forever.

Kim Foxx if I were guessing felt he wasn't getting enough attention when she threw the mutual combat out there, and they could have charged those individuals with other crimes...and I don't think they did. When people claim these circumstances are due to the Pandemic? They are full of it. It was a HUGE issue prior to the Pandemic, and they approached it as part of life then. The other change is it has got worse.

The reality is the Chicago Machine doesn't care about those people in those neighborhoods. When it sneaks into more wealthy neighborhoods? It gets shut down pretty fast, but no one can escape it entirely. It been going on for generations, and almost nothing has changed. Their excuses for it just go with the flow of what seems to be popular excuse of the day.

renniks · Oct 17, 2021

miamited said:
Really?? That sounds so much like an argument of nonsense that is just kind of flung out there because ...well, uh, ...it sounds good? In any bill destined to ban any firearms, there will be, just as there always is, a definition of terms. That's something that is worked out during the back and forth of weighing the bill. If you've ever read many Legislative bills, on most of them there are chapters that deal with "definition of terms".

But the " assault weapon" ban that we did have, started under Clinton, was silly. It banned certain guns based on things like folding stocks and add ons. The same gun without the add ons was legal.
Most politicians don't know a muzzleloader from an BMG.

"Mutual Combat" is OK in Chicago

Ted

Ted

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ted

Well-Known Member

God Cannot Be Grasped, Except Through Love

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ted

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads