'Tragic number': Chicago reaches 500 homicides for 2012
Dec 28, 2012 | 3164 views | 15 15 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print
CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says the city has logged its 500th homicide of the year.

McCarthy issued a statement Friday calling the milestone a "tragic number that is reflective of the gang violence and proliferation of illegal guns that have plagued some of our neighborhoods."

The police department went back and forth Friday, first verifying the 500th killing, then backing off and saying an earlier death was still being investigated.

By late Friday, police confirmed 40-year-old Nathaniel Jackson had become the 500th homicide victim when he was fatally shot in the head outside a convenience store on the city's West Side.

The last time Chicago reached the 500-homicide mark was in 2008, when the year ended with 512 killings. City records show Chicago had 435 homicides last year.
Comments
(15)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
candygun
|
January 01, 2013
You will never, in our free society, stop a determined person from: •obtaining and using drugs

•driving intoxicated

•physical violence

•obtaining firearms

We all want a "silver bullet"(pun intended) to stop gun violence, but all of the above are illegal except firearms and are rampant at all levels of society. Also, guns reach far deeper into the national psyche and history. If you can't stop weed,beer and gangs, how can you possibly stop the gun? Its not only about the 2nd amendment, its about money,security,confidence (or lack of) in government and layer upon layer of personal issues. Creating yet another sub-culture fueled by deprived birthright and billions of dollars will solve what? Look at the lessons of prohibition. It was jet fuel on the fire of organized crime.Society is losing its mind and will continue to eat itself regardless of being told it can't have forks.Will the last person to leave the dining room of common sense please turn off the light? But only if you have a night scope....

Demodog
|
December 31, 2012
Two reasons for gun violence:Not enough guns - if more people were armed then there'd be less violence and the other is that there are just too many people, because we know it is people, not guns that kill people so with fewer people there'd be fewer killings.
VN7073
|
December 31, 2012
The gene pool just got a little cleaner.
NoFreakinWay
|
December 31, 2012
Looks like all of that community organizing panned out. Way to go, O!
wheninrome
|
December 31, 2012
Situation 1: Crazy kid enters school with an AR-15 after killing mom at home. He stands at the end of the hall and begins firing his gun. Principal goes crazy and bum rushes him, but is stopped 20 ft away by a bullet that guts her without having touched the crazy kid. Janitor does the same and meets the same fate. Crazy kid proceeds to room k3 to shoot 20 kids. Shoots himself when police arrive and corner him.

Situation 2: Crazy kid enters school with an axe/knife/bat after killing mom at home. He stands at the end of the hall and begins banging on things. Principal goes crazy and bum rushes him, but meets her doom after tackling him when the axe/knife/bat overcomes her. Janitor does the same and meets the same fate. By now, there is a crowd of 10 people on top of the crazy kid and he proceeds to cut his wrists. With crazy kid subdued by the mob, police rush in and stop the bleeding. Crazy kid is tried and convicted, and studies are done on his mind to help prevent this in the future. Crazy kid never made it to room k3 to shoot 20 kids.

Hmmmm. Nah, I think you need your AR-187, M88, vr-12, sawed off mega gun more than we need answers. Can't you protect yourself and family with a 9mm gloc? Or .38 special? Or even a .44 magnum?

It's about compromise, people. It's not about rights. You keep them. This would not be the first time that smart Americans chose safety over freedoms. The militia won't be forming in the next few weeks...keep your rifles and pistols in case it does, however. Just leave the guns made for killing people en masse, for those who do that for a living: your beloved military.
mirage83
|
December 31, 2012
Our military doesn't use semi-auto only long-arms. They're either selective fire (semi and fully automatic), fully automatic and/or burst-mode fire. This doesn't count the special purpose arms like sniper rifles and the like.

"This would not be the first time that smart Americans chose safety over freedoms."

That's an oxymoron WiR, as smart Americans would know better than to trade freedom for the nebulous "safety" you refer to.
jarnoldcr
|
December 31, 2012
WheninRome's naivity about gun control aside for a moment...there is another disconcerting problem with this post. It presumes that someone who commits such a horrific act must be mentally ill (after all...no sane person could possibly commit such an act, right?) Problem with this logic is that, sadly, perfectly sane people commit horrible atrocities toward one another every single day. People who legitimately suffer from mental illness are far more likely to be the VICTIMS of a violent act, rather than the perpetrator. Our insistence that people like Adam Lanzer are mentally sick and whose brains must be studied only serves to further stigmatize mental illness. The following article explores this in further detail: http://www.xojane.com/issues/for-the-last-time-stop-conflating-violence-and-mental-illness
wheninrome
|
December 31, 2012
Gyges, very good video, but this only proves my point. The thugs in the street were fighting for nothing. There were no lives at stake. There was nothing to save other than their PCP deluded egos. They approached the bat-wielder one by one. Had all 7 attacked at once, there would be one guy who wished he didn't stop. Now put a gun, any gun, in the hand of the guy in the car. Did seven people die? Yep. If the bat wielder's aim was sufficient. And if your retort is that we'd be better off with seven thugs, then don't even reply, because that is so far from the point that it isn't even relevant.

Mirage83, I hope you had a towel handy to wipe the drool from your mouth at the opportunity to describe a gun, or your knowledge of our military's use. Read carefully. I don't care. I don't know anything about guns other than they make killing extremely easy, and to me, almost a cowardly act. And there is nothing nebulous about safety, friend. Precisely why you likely support the outrageous spending on our military budget...because of your desire for safety. And you should probably check the definition of oxymoron...you're a little off their on its use.

jarnold, defending the mentally ill is not something you have to do for me. I want his mind to be studied. Mentally ill or not, do you mean to say that having him answer the questions "Why did you do it?" not have value?
mirage83
|
January 01, 2013
WiR, if you don't care then why bother posting at all, much less bother posting erroneous or misleading information about a subject you evidently know little about and don't care to know anything about? That hardly helps you present any pertinent arguments about them aside from how you feel about them.

Safety is indeed a nebulous item unless you have some way of guaranteeing it to people, as in if you give up A we'll make sure B never happens to you. You cannot make such a guarantee, and neither can the government.

Spending on our military is a question of national security and our global interests, not of my safety.

As for this...

"And you should probably check the definition of oxymoron...you're a little off their on its use."

My use of the term is far more accurate than your use of the word "their". But perhaps you'd be willing to point out precisely how my use if it was incorrect, unless of course that's yet another thing you don't care about but still comment on.

JoMadden
|
January 01, 2013
If the absence of firearms made us all safe, 9/11 would have never occurred. Sounds to me like most of the discussion here is the talking points of your political party of preference rather than using any type of thought.
wish2010
|
December 29, 2012
I'm betting if statistics were made available, then over 75% of the perpetrators and over 50% of the victims are on some type of government subsistence.

This type of behavior permeating our society is a result of generations with no work ethic, no moral compass and no empathy for fellow humans or lessor beings.
GunNut
|
December 29, 2012
I'm sure it the people that committed these murders did not have guns, they would all be peaceful law abiding citizens! NOT! It is simple,mthere are evil people in this world, if they don't have a gun, a knife will do, or a stick or a rock. Murder has been around since Cain and Able, long before guns.

Why do I carry a gun, because I will not be a defenseless victim.
Trelicious
|
December 29, 2012
No, I'm betting that someone willing to murder 7 year olds would say "Can't do it today, guns are illegal and I CERTAINLY not want to violate a gun law while murdering children"

Yea, I know it's nonsensical, but I'm southern and therefore my point of view is irrelevant. Once I'm dependent on Obama for my subsistence I'll understand how wrong I was.
FormerRomanJr.
|
December 29, 2012
More killed in Chicago this year than in Afghanistan..
TinyOne
|
December 29, 2012
Sure looks like their strict gun control laws are working for them doesn't it? guns don't kill.....people do!
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.