NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: And Yet, a woman has to get a permit to even carry an electric stunner (much less an evil, prohibited handgun) to defend herself from violence, potential pregnancy, disease and/or death. Government. Protecting Citizens again. :rolleyes:

The rape "epidemic"

By Kathryn Masterson RedEye
Published January 25, 2006


In December, over DePaul's winter break, police reported that a man broke into a student's apartment and sexually assaulted her. Police and university officials alerted the public to the crime, and the case received attention from newspapers and TV stations.

But the DePaul case wasn't the only sexual assault in Chicago that weekend, said Angela Exson, the head of advocacy for Rape Victim Advocates.

That same weekend, volunteers from the group responded to 11 sexual assault victims in emergency rooms across the city.

"What we see in the newspaper or on television--it doesn't match what we see as service providers," Exson said. Rape "happens every single day."

In Chicago last year, sexual assaults (including rape and other types of sexual penetration) were reported to police at an average of more than three a day. Most of those cases never made the news. They were reported in every neighborhood but one, at nearly every time of day. The heaviest concentration of reports came from the city's South and West Sides.

Anti-rape activists say the number of rapes in Chicago is higher than police data shows, because most go unreported.

"It's an epidemic," said Tara Bryant Edwards, director of counseling for Rape Victim Advocates. "It's an epidemic, and it touches everyone, directly or indirectly."

The public isn't aware of the high number of rapes, Bryant Edwards said, because many don't fit society's idea of a stranger jumping out of the bushes at women. Instead, the rapist usually is someone the victim knows. Acquaintance rape can be as devastating as an attack from a stranger, Bryant Edwards said.

"These are life-changing events," she said. "People feel like they lose a part of themselves. Their relationships change ... it claims a part of their lives."

To examine the scope of sexual assault across the city last year, RedEye reported the location, date and time of every sexual assault of a victim 13 or older reported to Chicago police in 2005.

According to Chicago police, there were 1,214 such reports in 2005, an average of 3.3 a day. (RedEye data showed 1,239 reports. Monique Bond, director of news affairs for the police department, said the 25-case disparity is due to police later ruling some reports as unfounded.) Police data for 2005 show a total of 1,618 sexual assaults and attempted assaults (including adults and children) in the city, a drop from 1,757 in 2004. Bond attributes the decline to new strategies for deploying police officers in communities to combat all kinds of crimes.

According to a RedEye analysis of police data, every Chicago neighborhood but one--Clearing, on the Southwest Side--had at least one reported sexual assault in 2005. Almost two dozen neighborhoods had 20 or more reported sexual assaults during the year.

The communities that saw the largest number of reported sexual assaults--and the highest rate of sexual assaults by population--were mostly on the city's West and South Sides. Austin had the most reported assaults with 100; South Shore had 50. Communities with a high rate of reported rapes included Woodlawn, Greater Grand Crossing, Roseland, Englewood, Chatham and East Garfield Park.

Detective Jeffrey Roberts investigates sex crimes for Area 2, which covers a large part of the South Side. Last year, he and his partner investigated close to 100 sexual assault cases, he said.

Few of the cases he investigates become "heater" cases--like the DePaul attack--that draw attention and resources. More than half of the cases he sees are acquaintance rapes--someone from the neighborhood, an acquaintance of the victim's family--that don't warrant a community alert or sketch of a suspect. About 10 percent of Roberts' cases involve women who are drug users or prostitutes whose lifestyles make their cases difficult to prosecute.

Cases in higher-crime areas usually don't draw as much attention from the media and law enforcement as violent crimes in neighborhoods most people view as safe, Roberts said.

Roberts said he doesn't want any less attention for cases such as the DePaul rape or other North Side assaults. He'd like to see more attention provided for all sex crimes.

"It should be done everywhere," Roberts said. "I'm not saying don't do it. Do it for every one."

Roberts said all victims of sex crimes deserve equal treatment, no matter the circumstances surrounding their assault.

"A victim's a victim. I don't care about gender, color or class," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're making a million dollars or you're on public assistance. If you're sexually assaulted, you're still going to have the same nightmares."

Roberts did have a "heater" last fall when police linked a series of home invasions and sexual assaults or attempted assaults to one man. Victims reported that a man wearing a black ski mask broke into their homes when they were alone and attacked them. Police issued an alert and later arrested 21-year-old Prince Richard. He has been charged with three counts of criminal sexual assault, five counts of home invasion and two counts of burglary, Roberts said. He currently is being held without bond, according to the Cook County Sheriff's department.

Roberts believes better use of DNA could help police catch more rapists or catch them earlier. If DNA was taken from suspects arrested for crimes such as burglary or home invasion and put into a databank, it could help identify perpetrators if they had committed a sexual assault, he said.

A bill that would require DNA samples from everyone arrested for a felony has been proposed several times by State Rep. Susana Mendoza (D-Chicago) but has stalled in Springfield.

"Serial rapists would be shut down pretty quickly," Mendoza said about the proposed DNA samples.

Activists want a faster response. Tenille Power, who runs sexual assault services at the YWCA Harris Center on the South Side, was angry about what she believed was a slow response from law enforcement to the South Side serial attacks in the fall.

Power believed other areas, such as Wrigleyville in late 2004, received a faster response when a series of rapes were reported.

"That type of response does not happen on the South Side of Chicago," Power said.

Power believes the community needs to speak up, and that people should not accept and expect violence just because they live in certain neighborhoods.

She'd like to see the community confront the issue of rape with education and discussion about ways to reduce it.

"We don't talk about rape," Power said. "We sweep it under the rug and move on."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/graphic/2006-01/21612172.gif

What are you advocating? More guns? Or just a better police service?

What are you advocating? More guns? Or just a better police service?
Why not both?

Why not both?
I dunno. I was just wondering what the point of the thread was.

Oh, sorry- I re read your post. I should re phrase-

More white people having guns? Or better police?

How about more families and communities making it clear to their children and family/community members that "no means no" and "rape is wrong"?

Yes, women should be able to repell their attackers -- but what in hell is giving these guys the idea that sexual assault is okay in the first place?

Comment: And Yet, a woman has to get a permit to even carry an electric stunner (much less an evil, prohibited handgun) to defend herself from violence, potential pregnancy, disease and/or death. Government. Protecting Citizens again. :rolleyes:

What? Didn't you know that only the government is responsible enough to protect citizens?

What are you advocating? More guns? Or just a better police service?
Neither, necessairly. "more guns" won't solve the problem but making them illegal hasn't helped any either. Better Policing doesn't help the Victim - she's already been Raped.

How about just recognising the Right of the people to defend themselves as they see fit without having to go through a Rectal Exam just to carry a taser or mace/pepper-spray?

Neither, necessairly. "more guns" won't solve the problem but making them illegal hasn't helped any either. Better Policing doesn't help the Victim - she's already been Raped.

How about just recognising the Right of the people to defend themselves as they see fit without having to go through a Rectal Exam just to carry a taser or mace/pepper-spray?


That would worry me.
Is pepper spray banned? :confused:

How about more families and communities making it clear to their children and family/community members that "no means no" and "rape is wrong"?

Yes, and combine that with self defense programs and allowing women to own weapons to defend themselves against rapists.

Yes, women should be able to repell their attackers -- but what in hell is giving these guys the idea that sexual assault is okay in the first place?

No one is giving them that idea. It's the lack of someone teaching them that "rape is wrong" that plays a huge role in the act.

I'm not sure the chicago tribune will be happy you hotlinking to an image on their server..

I wonder what a .3 rape feels like. A grope?

I'm not sure the chicago tribune will be happy you hotlinking to an image on their server..
What could they possibly do about it?

I wonder what a .3 rape feels like. A grope?
An evil eye perhaps?

Why need guns? Have a *insert martial art style of your choice* class they have access to?

An evil eye perhaps?

I hope not. the amount of time I eye people evilly each day makes me somewhere close to a 2.0 rapist.

That would worry me.
Is pepper spray banned? :confused:
IIRC, like electric stunners, you have to get a State Approved "Firearms Owner Identification Card" - along with the full scoping that entails. So, you have to get permission to defend yourself even with non-lethal tools. :headbang:

IIRC, like electric stunners, you have to get a State Approved "Firearms Owner Identification Card" - along with the full scoping that entails. So, you have to get permission to defend yourself even with non-lethal tools. :headbang:

Wow. Is that across the US or does it vary from state to state?

That seems... foolish I agree. I'd have a problem with just anyone been able to carry a gun if they thought it would protect them. Pepper spray/Mace should be perfectly acceptable IMO.

Mace is also HIGHLY effective. The British police use it more and more these days instead of being armed, and it seems to work perfectly fine for them.

Why need guns? Have a *insert martial art style of your choice* class they have access to?
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_wheelchair.jpg

Wow. Is that across the US or does it vary from state to state?

That seems... foolish I agree. I'd have a problem with just anyone been able to carry a gun if they thought it would protect them. Pepper spray/Mace should be perfectly acceptable IMO.

Mace is also HIGHLY effective. The British police use it more and more these days instead of being armed, and it seems to work perfectly fine for them.

It varies from state to state and from local to local.

That includes firearm laws.

Wow. Is that across the US or does it vary from state to state?It varies from City to City, and Chicago is one of our more extreme cases.
That seems... foolish I agree. I'd have a problem with just anyone been able to carry a gun if they thought it would protect them.The (insert tool here) doesn't protect you, the willingness to protect yourself with a viable tool protects you. Pepper spray/Mace should be perfectly acceptable IMO. Mace is also HIGHLY effective. The British police use it more and more these days instead of being armed, and it seems to work perfectly fine for them.In the UK... ;)

It varies from state to state and from local to local.

That includes firearm laws.

Huh. Learn something new everday on NS General :D

I don't see why mace would be under the same stringent guidelines as a pistol.:eek:

Yes, and combine that with self defense programs and allowing women to own weapons to defend themselves against rapists.

No one is giving them that idea. It's the lack of someone teaching them that "rape is wrong" that plays a huge role in the act.So why isn't this education taking place in those communities? You'd think that this is something that every school, every faith, every ethnicity, and every family could get behind. It's not just about "rape is wrong", it's about having respect for other people. And some of you libertarians may hate this part, but it's also part of recognizing the needs of society as a whole, and learning to subvert your own personal needs and desires for the greater good. (Yes, I realize that most libertarians would recognize rape as wrong, because it can demonstrably harm another and impose on the victim's personal liberty. But I'm getting off-topic...) It's also about society recognizing it's responsibility towards its individual members and doing more than just imposing rules (which can be broken).

An education initiative of this kind is even more important than ensuring women can defend themselves, because this stops more than just one rape at a time - it helps prevent ALL rapes because young men grow up understanding that rape is wrong.

Why need guns? Have a *insert martial art style of your choice* class they have access to?

Because it's a martial art. Martial arts aren't horribly useful.

Most of what you need to know to defend yourself can be learned by going to the range once a week and putting 50-100 rounds into a target.

If you can't do that, well, there's always the self-defense courses. Even with the good ones, it shouldn't take much longer than a week to learn how to be effective. To be masterful is another matter entirely.

Huh. Learn something new everday on NS General :D

I don't see why mace would be under the same stringent guidelines as a pistol.:eek:

Silliness comes in all forms.

I can't say exactly what Chicago's laws are on Mace/PS. I'm sure it's highly restricive. Handguns are effectively banned w/ Chicago even being in violation of federal law to allow retired LEO's to own/carry w/i city limits.

I'm not sure the chicago tribune will be happy you hotlinking to an image on their server..
Probably happier than ripping it and hosting it unattributed on photobucket...

So why isn't this education taking place in those communities? You'd think that this is something that every school, every faith, every ethnicity, and every family could get behind. It's not just about "rape is wrong", it's about having respect for other people. And some of you libertarians may hate this part, but it's also part of recognizing the needs of society as a whole, and learning to subvert your own personal needs and desires for the greater good. (Yes, I realize that most libertarians would recognize rape as wrong, because it can demonstrably harm another and impose on the victim's personal liberty. But I'm getting off-topic...) It's also about society recognizing it's responsibility towards its individual members and doing more than just imposing rules (which can be broken).

I don't know, really. Most likely, it coincides with the decline in urban areas in terms of those factors; comparatively speaking, the religious, economic, educational, and social situation of the inner cities is far worse than it was a few decades ago. It seems that to control rapes in urban areas, we're going to have the address these problems both externally (through government intervention in terms of self-defense, etc.) and internally through community change. Exactly how we do that is a big unknown.

However, the "rise" in reported rapes is in some ways a good thing, because it coincides with increases in rape-counseling services, which means more women are reporting these crimes and police are able to take more action.

Why need guns? Have a *insert martial art style of your choice* class they have access to?
Following the instructions of most martial arts schools in a real fight will only result in you looking stupid as you get your ass kicked. Seriously, a good martial arts school that focuses on realistic self defense is hard to find. Also, even a female martial artist who's studied a realistic martial art and is technically good at it is at a disadvantage against two or more determined but untrained men.

I've had the good fortune to study martial arts at one of the best schools in the country. www.pamausa.com And I've been in my share of real fights.

I kinda know what I'm talking about.

What could they possibly do about it?I don't think that should be a motivation to do or not do something.

Probably happier than ripping it and hosting it unattributed on photobucket...You could have left the image out and linked to the article if people wanted to see it. For example..
But whatever.. There's no law about being neighbourly to other netizens..

Silliness comes in all forms.

I can't say exactly what Chicago's laws are on Mace/PS. I'm sure it's highly restricive. Handguns are effectively banned w/ Chicago even being in violation of federal law to allow retired LEO's to own/carry w/i city limits.

Stunners:

1. In order to possess a Taser or stun gun (in Illinois), an individual must have a valid FOID card, as is currently required for firearms. 2. Sellers of Taser or stun guns must check the buyers FOID card and keep the record of sale for ten years, the same requirements for firearms sales. 3. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a Taser or stun gun, they must request a background check of the buyer. 4. The 24-hour waiting period required for long guns, shotguns, and rifles, will also apply to taser and stun gun purchases.

Unfortunately, there is a huge backlog at the State's recalcitrant FOID office, meaning you could be waiting for MONTHS before they deem you worthy to buy even non-lethal defense products. :rolleyes:

I'm still trying to find the statute on CS/PS, but here's the one for Boston...

Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 140 § 129B requires that a person be licensed in order to purchase, and/or possess chemical sprays. A violation of this statue is a criminal offense.

Massachusetts State Law. Ann. Laws of Massachusetts. Chapter 140. Sale of Firearms. Section 131J: Sale or possession of electrical weapons; penalties. Section 131J. No person shall sell, offer for sale or possess a portable device or weapon from which an electric current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill. Whoever violates this provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years in a jail or house of correction, or both.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in Massachusetts.

Yay Government. :rolleyes:

I suppose you could just go out and buy a can of oven cleaning spray instead of mace. Sure the potassium hydroxide and bleach in it will permanently blind an assailant, but it's legal to own and carry.

Stunners:

1. In order to possess a Taser or stun gun (in Illinois), an individual must have a valid FOID card, as is currently required for firearms. 2. Sellers of Taser or stun guns must check the buyers FOID card and keep the record of sale for ten years, the same requirements for firearms sales. 3. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a Taser or stun gun, they must request a background check of the buyer. 4. The 24-hour waiting period required for long guns, shotguns, and rifles, will also apply to taser and stun gun purchases.

Unfortunately, there is a huge backlog at the State's recalcitrant FOID office, meaning you could be waiting for MONTHS before they deem you worthy to buy even non-lethal defense products. :rolleyes:

I knew about tasers. I'm not sure about mace.

Blabberbitch got seriously jumped for the FOID thing and they're alledgeldy hiring 10 temps to catch up then to hire 10 full timers.

There was an op-ed piece bitching that the "gun lobby" attacked the Gov. for wanting to increase the FOID from 5$ for five years to $500 and then stated that the admin cost/card was ~$7.50 each.

I guess in his mind, a deficit of $2.50 (which I wouldn't complain if they raised it to $10 or so) = justifying an increase of $495.

And people wonder why the "gun lobby" doesn't trust the "anti-gun lobby".

I suppose you could just go out and buy a can of oven cleaning spray instead of mace. Sure the potassium hydroxide and bleach in it will permanently blind an assailant, but it's legal to own and carry.

Sweet! :D

Sweet! :D

The problem w/ that is the most of the states/locals restricting self-defense also don't have laws protecting the victim from civil liability suits. Permanently blinding someone w/ oven cleaner could also land you some criminal charges for "exessive force", etc.

Another reason laws such as Florida's and the bill in KS are good.

I don't know, really. Most likely, it coincides with the decline in urban areas in terms of those factors; comparatively speaking, the religious, economic, educational, and social situation of the inner cities is far worse than it was a few decades ago. It seems that to control rapes in urban areas, we're going to have the address these problems both externally (through government intervention in terms of self-defense, etc.) and internally through community change. Exactly how we do that is a big unknown.You're getting close to the point I'm trying to make. Ignoring the social situation in inner cities where family and community have already broken down isn't going to stop anything. These places need intervention. Tough love. Whatever you want to call it. What it really needs is that families need support, communities need to be rebuilt, decent homes and living conditions created, drug rehabilitation offered, and everyone with hope and opportunities for the future. These are big ticket items. Yes, charity groups can help - and help a lot if its someone like the Red Cross - but in reality, it's only government and your tax dollars that can tender legislation, create programs, and provide enough stable funding to make a difference -- if politicians and the public have the will to do something about it. And yes, ultimately you need buy-in from the people you are trying to help (or at least their kids), because although they need help, everything can't be done for them. (That's part of the community taking responsibility for itself.)

Otherwise it's not going to change and certain growing numbers of men will continue to think that sexually assaulting a woman (or murder, assault, theft etc) is an okay thing to do.

Chicago; The Sex Capital of the World! Whether You Like It Or Not!

What a great tourism slogan! :D

Mace is also HIGHLY effective. The British police use it more and more these days instead of being armed.

oh, those silly brits.

Chicago; The Sex Capital of the World! Whether You Like It Or Not!

What a great tourism slogan! :D


now that's funny

Its not rape, its surprise sex!!

I think common sense is the best weapon here the Government should pay for Taxis on Friday and Saturday night plus women (and Men) should really know to travel in groups at night. It would also be a grand idea to have clubs keep at least one bouncer inside to keep an eye on the customers.

This may also be a case of more rapes being reported (like all crimes nowadays) or in fact women getting the wrong idea and just suing any man who slept with them (which believe it or not does happen and usually involves the woman not saying “no“)

Did anyone notice that Lakeview AKA Wrigleyville has twice the number of rapes per capita than Bridgeport, the neighborhood of my White Sox? But the evil Tribune that owns the Cubs says Wrigleyville is safe and Bridgeport is a neighborhood that is unsafe and full of scum. Fuck the Tribune and their stupid Cubs.

Comment: And Yet, a woman has to get a permit to even carry an electric stunner (much less an evil, prohibited handgun) to defend herself from violence, potential pregnancy, disease and/or death. Government. Protecting Citizens again. :rolleyes:

What's even more interesting is that according to the Dept of Justice, 89 percent of rapists are completely unarmed.

Being larger, stronger, and more aggressive works against unarmed females most of the time.

Just a note, this isn't the Tribune, it is Redeye, a paper that serves primarily the southside (best side of town.)

Just a note, this isn't the Tribune, it is Redeye, a paper that serves primarily the southside (best side of town.)That may well be, but the image is served from http://www.chicagotribune.com/

Doesn't really matter where the news comes from though. 3.3 rapes a day is appallingly high..
Might be a good market for chastity belts.. Or that anti-rapist gadget they created in south africa; sort of like a row of barbed teeth that attaches itself to a rapist if he penetrates.. Needs a doctor to remove it too..

How about more families and communities making it clear to their children and family/community members that "no means no" and "rape is wrong"?

Yes, women should be able to repell their attackers -- but what in hell is giving these guys the idea that sexual assault is okay in the first place?

Since when does anyone give any criminal the idea that their acts are okay?

What society teaches anyone that sexual assault, robbery, burglary, murder or other crimes are okay?

And why were these crimes occurring at much lower rates back before God was removed from the public square and confined to a small closet in a church?

More white people having guns? Or better police?


Actually, all of the areas noted as being high in rape (and high in crime in general) are predominantly poor and either black or hispanic. Places like Wrigleyville and Lincoln Park (where DePaul is) are predominatly white and upper class. Guess who gets more responsive police? Guess who gets more experianced police? It isn't the white people who need the guns...

One of the big problems with police coverage in Chicago is that the worst neighborhoods get the greenest cops. Transfers are based on seniority, so every new cop goes to some hellhole that they know they'll be out of in 18 months when the next crop of rookies gets rotated in. As a result, they don't really care if the neighborhood goes to hell, it isn't their neighbors and it won't be their problem in a year and a half.

How about just recognising the Right of the people to defend themselves as they see fit without having to go through a Rectal Exam just to carry a taser or mace/pepper-spray?

Actually, in Chicago proper, you just can't. Tazers and pepper spray are just as illegal as any other concealed weapon within the city limits. Outside the city you need a FOID to get a tazer (and possably pepper spray, enforcement varies), but inside you're shit outta luck. In some neighborhoods all you can do is make sure you don't go out after dark.

That would worry me.
Is pepper spray banned? :confused:

In the city? Yes. Tazers? Yes. Knifes with blades exceeding two and one half inches? Yes. "Blunt objects?" Yes. Even a FOID doesn't help you in the city limits.

It varies from City to City, and Chicago is one of our more extreme cases.

King Dick's fiefdom is THE most extreme case outside of DC.

I suppose you could just go out and buy a can of oven cleaning spray instead of mace. Sure the potassium hydroxide and bleach in it will permanently blind an assailant, but it's legal to own and carry.

Bear mace is a good substitute, too. The way the laws are written here in Illinois (and Cook County, and Chicago) it actually counts as an animal repellant, not a weapon. Also, it foams and sticks when it comes out so closing your eyes doesn't really give you much protection.

This may also be a case of more rapes being reported (like all crimes nowadays) or in fact women getting the wrong idea and just suing any man who slept with them (which believe it or not does happen and usually involves the woman not saying “no“)

This is why ignorant fucks shouldn't be allowed to drink near a keyboard, folks. I think we can all agree -gun nut and gun banner alike- that Grezalia either has it's head in the sand or up it's ass. Thank you.

Did anyone notice that Lakeview AKA Wrigleyville has twice the number of rapes per capita than Bridgeport, the neighborhood of my White Sox? But the evil Tribune that owns the Cubs says Wrigleyville is safe and Bridgeport is a neighborhood that is unsafe and full of scum. Fuck the Tribune and their stupid Cubs.

Ahh...good ol' bridgeport, where its been at least six months since a black child riding a bike has been beaten with a baseball bat for not knowing better. Hows the highway? Still keeping those uppity negroes from moving in and misceginating with good Irish and Italian women?

Just a note, this isn't the Tribune, it is Redeye, a paper that serves primarily the southside (best side of town.)

Redeye is owned by the Tribune. Its aimed at people under the age of 25 and is written at roughly an eighth grade level. If you want a good South Side paper, theres always The Chicago Defender, though I'm guessing Bridgeport doesn't see a lot of sales...

God forbid we make sure the people who own things like tasers and handguns are decent, reasonable people.

It's bloody obvious that if we flood the streets with guns, not giving a damn about silly things like 'permits' and 'background checks,' crime will go down.

You know what it is? The commieliberal government just wants rapes to happen.

Snip all the good stuff

Dude, we have GOT to hook up. My Invite for Michigan City Black Powder Shooting is still Open. Catch a South Shore early AMon a 1st Sunday and I'll treat ya to Smoke & Lunch.

Dude, we have GOT to hook up. My Invite for Michigan City Black Powder Shooting is still Open. Catch a South Shore early AMon a 1st Sunday and I'll treat ya to Smoke & Lunch.

Perhaps at some point. My life is a bit on the hectic side right now.

God forbid we make sure the people who own things like tasers and handguns are decent, reasonable people.

It's bloody obvious that if we flood the streets with guns, not giving a damn about silly things like 'permits' and 'background checks,' crime will go down.

You know what it is? The commieliberal government just wants rapes to happen.

Umm...ok, heres the situation. I have never been charged with a crime, I do not have a history of mental illness, there has never been a restraining order out on me, I have submitted to a state background check, paid for my liscense and had my picture taken. If I buy a tazer I am either a criminal or not depending on if I live in Chicago or in a suburb. If I buy an handgun legally in the same state in the same county and submit to a federal background check at the time of purchesthen the next day fill out the required forms to register that pistol in Chicago (which requires more fees, more photos, and another background check), my request will be refused and I'll be a criminal. Not because of a law, but because of a policy of refusing to register handguns. Oh, and if I'm caught with a legally purchased stun gun or a can of mace, I'm subject to the same punishment as if I were caught with a pistol. But there is no procedure for registering those items.

It has nothing to do with being decent or reasonable, otherwise Chicago wouldn't be violating federal law and refusing to allow retired police with clean records to carry concealed.

God forbid we make sure the people who own things like tasers and handguns are decent, reasonable people. And it's reasonable to take months to do this - after charging you for the privelege? And it's reasonable to do it even for non-lethal tools of self defense? And it's reasonable to do this when I can carry (as mentioned earlier) the much more dangerous and permenant Oven Cleaner. :rolleyes:
It's bloody obvious that if we flood the streets with guns, not giving a damn about silly things like 'permits' and 'background checks,' crime will go down. Do you get the fact that what I'm talking about is the ability to CHOOSE the method of self defense. Franlky all things being equal, I would prefer that people carried non-lethal, effective self defense tools. But all things aren't equal. However, you can continue to spew "Pro Choice (on guns) = NeCon Facisim" if you like.
You know what it is? The commieliberal government just wants rapes to happen.Probably not, but they sure don't do much to stop them either. Nor do they seem to want Women to be ableto defend themselves - if only with non-lethal tools. So what the want, and the defacto reality are somewhat different.

Perhaps at some point. My life is a bit on the hectic side right now.
And mine isn't? ;)

Ancient Chinese Proverb:

If you don't take the time to relax, you will never be given the time to relax.

Besides - Free food & Shooting. What's the downside?

You're getting close to the point I'm trying to make. Ignoring the social situation in inner cities where family and community have already broken down isn't going to stop anything. These places need intervention. Tough love. Whatever you want to call it. What it really needs is that families need support, communities need to be rebuilt, decent homes and living conditions created, drug rehabilitation offered, and everyone with hope and opportunities for the future. These are big ticket items. Yes, charity groups can help - and help a lot if its someone like the Red Cross - but in reality, it's only government and your tax dollars that can tender legislation, create programs, and provide enough stable funding to make a difference -- if politicians and the public have the will to do something about it. And yes, ultimately you need buy-in from the people you are trying to help (or at least their kids), because although they need help, everything can't be done for them. (That's part of the community taking responsibility for itself.)

Otherwise it's not going to change and certain growing numbers of men will continue to think that sexually assaulting a woman (or murder, assault, theft etc) is an okay thing to do.


It SOUNDS good, but the problem is is that government is the most inefficient thing on the planet when it comes to money. I don't trust ANY government with money -- especially for socialist-leaning programs -- as they simply don't know how to use it.

Until that happens, I will continue to disagree that government is the answer, simply because situation + government = FUBAR. Throwing money at anything never helps, something that both parties in the US need to learn.