Cta Commuter Robbed At Gunpoint

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ericatomars, Nov 2, 2009.

  1. Ericatomars macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2008
    Chicago IL

    November 2, 2009
    Sun-Times Media Wire
    A man was robbed of his iPhone at gunpoint while on a CTA Red Line train late Sunday night in the Uptown neighborhood on the North Side.

    The incident happened at 10:50 p.m. when the 47-year-old computer technician was on a southbound Red Line train that was stopped at the Wilson station, on the 4620 block of North Broadway, according to Town Hall District police.

    A man in his late teens dressed in dark clothing got on the train, pointed a gray pistol at the man who had the iPhone in his hand and said, “Give me the phone or I’ll shoot you,’’ according to police.

    The victim complied and the suspect ran off the train before it started moving again. No one was hurt and the weapon was not fired, according to police who said the victim stayed on the train until the next stop when he exited the train with witnesses and reported the incident to officers.

    No one was in custody at 2:30 a.m.

    Belmont Area detectives are investigating

    **gotta be careful when playing on your iphone boys and girls
  2. vlinkz macrumors regular

    Nov 28, 2006
    Pacific Northwest
  3. Mischka07 macrumors regular

    Sep 28, 2009
    This is exactly why I don't use the iPhone on the BART. I've heard of too many people getting jacked right before the doors close.
  4. labman macrumors 604


    Jun 9, 2009
    Mich near Detroit
    This is why

    I like being on a gsm network, when I am in a bad area I can switch to L cheapo phone. Pop the sims back in my iPhone when I think it's safe but you can buy used phones on craigs all day for $30-$40 even less shame we have to do that but that's the world we live in.
  5. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    One has to be careful in any large city, but it honestly isn't usually like that. I'm glad no one was hurt. Maybe that locate me feature can be used to catch a criminal....
  6. iphone1105 macrumors 68020


    Oct 8, 2009
    Damn, EVERYWHERE you're scary.

    This crime could've happend anywhere. Chicago is actually a great city.

    I use my iPhone all the time in public, if someone points a gun in my face for it, I'll gladly give it to them. But I'm not one of those who wont use his iPhone because I might be in a sketchy place.
  7. Consultant macrumors G5


    Jun 27, 2007
    It could have happened anywhere. Note to self, don't show expensive items on sketchy places.

    User should have used "Hide a Pod"
    http://hideapod.com/ =p
  8. army91c macrumors 6502a

    Mar 9, 2009
    That's why I have my ccw..... drop phone, bad guy bends over to pick it up, pull out Springfield Arms 1911 model Loaded Light Weight and proceed to put 3 or 4 .45 Hydroshocks in said bad guys chest and mellon. I keep my i, one more piece of human feces off the streets to rob other hard working Americans. Side benefit, another POS is on the train and decides to change his/her ways because they don't want to end up dead by another unafraid armed citizen.... If you are able and feel comfortable enough, take a firearms safety class and apply for your CCW. An armed citizenry is a safer citizenry.
  9. stanleyBE macrumors member

    Sep 22, 2008
    That is actually scarier than having my iPhone stolen.
  10. army91c macrumors 6502a

    Mar 9, 2009
    What is? You think criminals should be the only ones armed? Do you think I don't have the right to protect myself? How many people would of been killed in the Columbine shootings if a few teachers where armed? How many students would of died in the VT shootings if a few of the students where armed. Take any mass shooting and apply the same logic..... Maybe you will be envolved in the next mass shooting situation..... wouldn't you rather be armed and able to protect yourself and your friends/family? If only 2% of the population has their CCW, thats millions of armed citizens ready to protect YOUR life. We know the criminals are armed, why not have those that follow the law be armed too.
  11. stanleyBE macrumors member

    Sep 22, 2008
    1. Can't tell who that is. Is there anyone out there always following every law?
    2. Accidents are bound to happen when everyone carries one.

    But hey, I'm in Europe. We don't carry guns. And have a LOT less gun related deaths, for that matter. A connection seems evident.
  12. arkitect macrumors 603


    Sep 5, 2005
    Bath, United Kingdom

    Fantasizing like that must really get you off…
    Do you have any idea how out of touch with reality you sound? Like a bad voice-over in a c-grade vigilante movie.

  13. QCassidy352 macrumors G4


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    This thread should have been in recent events, not iPhone, to begin with. And now we're rapidly heading for the political section.
  14. Warbrain macrumors 603


    Jun 28, 2004
    Chicago, IL
    Completely bypassing the political discussion that this is devolving into...

    Seriously, people, you need to consider the environment when using your phone. Any phone. I have always done this. And it doesn't matter what neighborhood or anything...but if extremely late and in a not-well-lit area or the CTA I don't use headphones, don't use my iPhone...
  15. wilheldp macrumors member

    Oct 23, 2008
    While I agree that CCW permits make us safer, your two examples don't hold water. There is no state in the nation that will allow any non-police citizen to carry a concealed weapon on a college or grade school campus whether they have a CCW permit or not.
  16. craig1410 macrumors 65816


    Mar 22, 2007
    I wonder how many innocent people would lose their lives due to the accidental shootings which would ensue? How many kids will kill themselves or their friends while playing with Dad's gun? How many bystanders will be killed when half-trained civilians start blasting away with their Desert Eagles and don't realise the bullets go straight through walls, cars & bad guys? Shooting is easy, the hardest part is learning when not to shoot!

    It's just the same as self-defense. It is only useful if you use it every day or train every day so that your reactions remain sharp even when huge quantities of adrenaline are flowing in your bloodstream. The only people who can realistically do this are professional police, armed forces personnel and successful armed robbers/murderers/bad guys! Having Joe and Jane Bloggs carrying guns and then expecting them to handle the intensity of a real life shootout without killing themselves or half a dozen bystanders is just not realistic.

    I am so glad that in my country only licensed firearms professionals are legally allowed to carry guns.
  17. str1f3 macrumors 68000

    Aug 24, 2008
    Probably could have got his phone back if he had MobileMe.
  18. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Oct 22, 2007
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    I can answer that one for you....

    In the 1990s they published the figures for King County, Washington which includes Seattle.

    Half of all deaths by firearms were one spouse shooting the other. A quarter of the deaths were a family member shooting another family member (excluding the spouse). A eighth were friends shooting friends, and finally an eighth were a potential victim shooting an alleged criminal.

    So, for every criminal that gets shot doing a bad thing you have 7 innocent people getting shot.

    King County is not known of being a "gun loving, gun toting" place.

    I am so glad I live in a country that regulates guns.
  19. savoirfaire macrumors 6502


    Nov 23, 2003
    New England
    I tell ya, it seems like every week, a thread in the current events section turns into an argument about gun rights/gun control...
  20. army91c macrumors 6502a

    Mar 9, 2009
    Agreed, (my argument was a hypothetical situation, not specific to the legality of CCW on school campus) that's why the laws need to be changed. As far as all the other arguments....

    arkitect it's not fantasy unfortunately... after serving 6 years in the Army with a few deployments to not so friendly areas of the world.....You fill in the blanks.

    stanleyBE, not every one can carry one unless they are doing it illegally. You have to have a very extensive background check and have either served in the Military, or taken the proper classes in order to even apply for your CCW. Spent three years in `Europe (Germany) , loved it and hope to make it back some day.

    snberk103, those statistics are not related to CCW.

    craig1410, Not sure which accidental shooting you're speaking of. Your points have no relation to CCW. Gun safety of course is a completely different conversation. You are correct, the training that goes into and that must be maintained in r/t having your CCW is a great responsibility that should not be taken lightly. I put aprox 1000 rounds down range a month.
  21. FX120 macrumors 65816


    May 18, 2007
    I can't speak for every state, but here in Oregon I always carry on public school property (which includes the state colleges).

    http://www.oregonfirearms.org/LC opinion Stubbs/LC Opinion.pdf

  22. IntheNet macrumors regular


    Oct 6, 2009
    Chicago's restriction on concealed weapons permits for citizens and two guesses on the socialist we blame for that!

    No; we need to lock up the punks in Chicago and return freedom to citizens.
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
    Maybe dealing with the poverty in many parts of the south side of Chicago would help...
  24. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Oct 22, 2007
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    Why not? I will grant that I don't know how many of those gun related deaths were by legally vs illegally owned guns, though in my opinion most of them were legally owned. I live in country that regulates gun ownership, so perhaps I am missing the distinction between legally owned and CCW.

    I have a couple further points though.
    A) Many arguments for gun ownership say that no-one in their right mind would pull out a gun if they thought that others were armed. This argument is rebutted by the fact that serial killings are by people who aren't in their right minds. The tragedies at Fort Hood and Orlando being the two most recent.
    B) If a citizenry carrying guns made for a safer community, then the US should be at the top for safety. Its near or at the bottom in the developed world.
    C) Many pro-gun arguments turn on the Constitutional right to bear arms in order to overthrow a tyrannical government. That was over 200 years ago. Imagine if in 1556 (not a typo) an Italian City State had enacted the right to bear arms for the same reason and then in 1776 the citizenry had tried to overthrow the government. They would have been bringing swords to a gun-fight (the government being the ones with the guns). In this day and age a gun-toting civilian militia is not going to over-throw the US government. If you want a bone-chilling possible scenario try reading "Hand Maids Tale" by Margaret Atwood. If you want a Constitutional amendment that is appropriate for today, you should have the right to a computer and the internet. A Mac preferably to keep this on topic for a Mac Rumour site. :)
  25. CalBoy macrumors 604


    May 21, 2007
    You know, I was just robbed about 10 days ago in a manner very similar to this story (with the exception that I was in a public park in a well-lit, normally crowded place). My assailants (there were three of them) came up and flanked me very quickly, and even if I had had a concealed weapon, I would never have had the time to draw it.

    On the contrary, if I had a weapon clearly visible on my person, I would likely have been left alone.

    I think it's probably better to say that a concealed weapon is a more effective defense when facing a mass shooter (like the Fort Hood shooter or Virginia Tech) because that person isn't going to back down even when they see another armed individual. For an ordinary mugger, an armed conflict is simply not worthwhile, and they will leave you alone, which is why a plainly visible weapon is probably more effective for that situation.

    One might say the exact same thing about cars. Prior to the standardization of road rules, the number of deaths caused by vehicles was enormous (and serious injuries were also incredibly common as well). You'll note that despite having more cars than ever before, we have far fewer deaths per passenger mile than ever before. New technologies (like seatbelts, airbags, shatterproof glass, etc) have combined with better regulation (speed limits, license testing, traffic signals, etc) to make driving a much safer activity.

    There's no reason to believe that similar precautions wouldn't yield similar results for guns. In fact, if looked at on a per capita basis, military deaths/accidents due to accidental discharge are much rarer than in the general population, despite the fact that the sheer number of guns that are at arms reach is astronomically higher.

    As it is with anything dangerous, the key is training.

    The problem with your conclusion is that you assume that guns are the catalyst for violence. The simple fact is, most murders are committed by someone the victim knew at the time of his/her death.

    What you need to do is establish that more gun deaths are caused by the presence of guns, and then you can make that claim.

    In any event, the number of accidental gun deaths in the US in 2007 was .59/100,000, or about 1,770 total. In that same year there were approximately 11,160 gun-related homicides, which means that even if 1/7 of those is prevented, there is a no net loss to an armed society. If slightly more than 1/7 homicides is prevented by gun ownership, then society begins to see a gain (at least presuming these numbers hold constant, which I'll admit they likely would not).

    CCW=concealed carry. It is legal, and permits the license holder to carry an armed weapon in a way that prevents detection by standard observation.

    Your own argument refers to two different groups (those who are in their right mind, and those who are not). Right-minded individuals will not seek to increase the level of conflict with someone they perceive to be able to inflict similar damage upon themselves as they can upon others (aka, mutually assured destruction).

    Someone who is mentally unhinged doesn't perform this calculus in their mind because they are not mentally balanced. Such individuals typically end up committing suicide or suicide by cop (as it is known). In that case, being armed allows you to take out such an unhinged individual before he can present a danger to yourself or others.

    There is an implied assumption here that gun concentration is higher among non-violent citizens than violent criminal ones; that typically isn't the case. Many, many guns are in the hands of criminals. Gun control laws are laxly enforced in many parts of the country, and not many people like to carry their guns around with them (when violent crimes are more likely to be committed).

    Essentially, an armed citizenry can equalize itself with would-be assailants. A 50 year-old woman and a 25 year-old man have very different physical abilities, and a fight between them would be unfair. Give them both a gun, and suddenly the odds have come much closer to 50:50.

    The problem is, such a situation only applies when the criminal knows (or believes) that most targets are armed. Most individuals are not armed, and criminals are aware of this, hence they can engage in their heinous acts.

    It's also a tad disingenuous to compare the United States to every other developed nation when it comes to crime. Most other developed nations are fairly homogenous and don't have histories of racial tension. As sad of a mark as it is, we still have a fair number of hate crimes committed in the United States, as well as other crimes that have a background related to racial tension.

    The problem with this is that we have two active military theatres which prove it wrong. A determined populace can resist, and if they have access to lethal weapons, they can resist quite effectively. Americans own their share of armor-piercing weapons, explosives, and other highly effective means of destruction. Moreover, advanced technology is rather limited when attempting to keep the peace; that is a game that must be played by foot soldiers, and it's one we have proven we can't win several times in the past 50 years.

    It sure would. Unfortunately, American politics doesn't like to address underlying problems, merely cure symptoms.

Share This Page