HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » If gun control laws are s...

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:57 AM

 

If gun control laws are so good

why does Chicago (with some of most restrictive gun control laws in the nation) have such a high gun crime rate?

91 replies, 12620 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply If gun control laws are so good (Original post)
guardian Jul 2012 OP
rrneck Jul 2012 #1
Missycim Jul 2012 #2
ileus Jul 2012 #24
Jenoch Aug 2012 #66
Missycim Aug 2012 #68
Jenoch Aug 2012 #72
Missycim Aug 2012 #73
Jenoch Aug 2012 #90
xxenderwigginxx Jul 2012 #10
electedface Jul 2012 #3
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #5
guardian Jul 2012 #9
gejohnston Jul 2012 #11
Hangingon Jul 2012 #13
oneshooter Jul 2012 #35
Jenoch Aug 2012 #67
Jenoch Aug 2012 #69
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #70
samsingh Jul 2012 #4
alabama_for_obama Jul 2012 #6
samsingh Jul 2012 #8
gejohnston Jul 2012 #14
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #15
Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #16
samsingh Jul 2012 #18
Reasonable_Argument Jul 2012 #20
gejohnston Jul 2012 #22
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #65
russ1943 Aug 2012 #76
gejohnston Aug 2012 #77
russ1943 Aug 2012 #83
gejohnston Aug 2012 #85
russ1943 Aug 2012 #87
gejohnston Aug 2012 #88
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #12
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #57
spin Jul 2012 #59
msongs Jul 2012 #7
samsingh Jul 2012 #28
guardian Jul 2012 #30
samsingh Jul 2012 #39
gejohnston Jul 2012 #43
samsingh Jul 2012 #44
gejohnston Jul 2012 #47
samsingh Jul 2012 #51
gejohnston Jul 2012 #61
samsingh Jul 2012 #62
Jenoch Aug 2012 #75
guardian Jul 2012 #48
samsingh Jul 2012 #53
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #58
armueller2001 Aug 2012 #64
DWC Jul 2012 #17
samsingh Jul 2012 #19
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #21
samsingh Jul 2012 #40
gejohnston Jul 2012 #42
samsingh Jul 2012 #45
gejohnston Jul 2012 #46
samsingh Jul 2012 #52
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #56
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #60
russ1943 Aug 2012 #71
gejohnston Aug 2012 #74
russ1943 Aug 2012 #78
gejohnston Aug 2012 #79
russ1943 Aug 2012 #86
gejohnston Aug 2012 #89
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #91
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #32
samsingh Jul 2012 #41
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #55
guardian Jul 2012 #23
Kolesar Jul 2012 #26
guardian Jul 2012 #29
Kolesar Jul 2012 #33
guardian Jul 2012 #34
alabama_for_obama Aug 2012 #63
bongbong Jul 2012 #25
guardian Jul 2012 #31
samsingh Jul 2012 #36
gejohnston Jul 2012 #38
guardian Jul 2012 #49
samsingh Jul 2012 #50
samsingh Jul 2012 #37
GreenStormCloud Jul 2012 #54
RegieRocker Jul 2012 #27
ellisonz Aug 2012 #80
gejohnston Aug 2012 #81
ellisonz Aug 2012 #82
gejohnston Aug 2012 #84

Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:25 PM

1. Because

private sellers from gun shows parachute in from black helicopters and salt the sidewalks with evil death spewing seeds of pistol gripping things that go up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:27 PM

2. They have also

 

10 to 20 guns strapped on them or shoved down their pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:47 PM

24. rudecitybigottoterspushersdeathmerchantsspewerstrawsellers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:06 PM

66. When was the last time you attended

a gun show? (Or any time for that matter)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:11 PM

68. I dont attend them

 

since guns kill I am shocked anyone has gotten out of one of those alive, must lose at least half the visitors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #68)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:30 PM

72. So you have ZERO first hand

knowledge about gun shows. You should have lead with that information. It would save a lot of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #72)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:32 PM

73. But how do you know

 

I dont have 10 or 20 guns strapped to myself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #73)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 12:00 AM

90. Why would

you do something such as that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:42 PM

10. LOL

 

you just became my hero

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:02 PM

3. Online Gun Sales

While I believe it is our given right to own a firearm, I don't think our founding fathers necessarily intended on us having semi-automatic rifles when they wrote the Declaration. I do think that stricter regulations are necessary, mainly in the online gun sale department.

https://electedface.com/article_full_view.php?ArtID=69

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:09 PM

5. there is no ONLINE GUN SALE DEPARTMENT

all sales must go through an FFL unless they are private sales taking place within the state of residence for both parties. knowingly selling to someone you believe to be a felon or otherwise unable to legally purchase a gun is... Illegal! Online sales are surely tracked by the ATF, since it is much easier to monitor public internet postings than it is to monitor people otherwise. Please know what you are talking about before you spout off with such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:36 PM

9. "Please know what you are talking about before"

 

Obviously you don't. Chicago had a handgun ban for 28 years until last year. And they still have some of the most restrictive ownership regulations and require a very restrictive ownership permitting process.

By the 'reasoning' of the gun control crowd...greater firearms restrictions will reduce gun crime/deaths. In fact the OPPOSITE is happening in Chicago.

Why don't you stay on point and address the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:46 PM

11. the Brady Campaign?

Now, let's compare those countries for murder rates:

I'm sorry, they all have stricter gun laws and higher murder rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Oh yeah, they didn't do it per captia. Even then South Africa, with its strict gun laws an smaller population, didn't seem to work very well did they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:47 PM

13. I am guessing that you mean Constitution when you say Declaration

It really helps your cause when you know what you are talking about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:50 PM

35. Still pushing your web site. Can you come up with another argument?

We are getting tired of ignoring that one.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:09 PM

67. When the FF wrote the 1st Amendment

did they necessarily intend for us to have the telegraph, facsimile technology, telephones, radio, television, cellular telephones, internet technology, Facebook et al.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to electedface (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:15 PM

69. Ok, so I went to your link.

The link is to a webpage asking people to sign a petition to make it illegal to buy guns and assault weapons over the internet. That is the most stupid petition I have ever laid eyes upon. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO PURCHASE FIREARMS OVER THE INTERNET.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #69)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:21 PM

70. I have it on good authority...

...(namely links provided by a few control favoring fellow posters here on DU) that you can buy assault weapons, LAAWS rockets and full-auto slingshots off the internet or at any gun show.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:04 PM

4. gun control facts for you

Here's a very interesting read with real statistics:

Time to face facts on gun control
by Fareed Zakaria


Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green Ė those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

But the sheer number of guns isnít an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. Thatís four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers donít flatter America.

I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data Ė gun control restrictions Ė you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.

link:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:12 PM

6. except for little old vermont

which has pretty much no state restrictions, yet has IIRC the lowest gun deaths and gun crime in the nation. huh. if you break it down inside the states, there are some areas of some of those states that have horrendous gun crime and fatalities, despite their extra laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:21 PM

8. 50% of the world's private guns are owned in the US

how can anyone argue that more guns will make America safer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to samsingh (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:47 PM

15. You're missing a step there

 

1) US has a lot of guns
2) ?????
3) this proves the US is horribly dangerous.

We also produce a lot of rap music, HFCS, and video-games if you want to get on those bandwagons as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:50 PM

16. The fact that other countries

 

Decide to disarm their citizens, and the citizens go along with it, doesn't prove your point. Step away from just looking at "gun violence" statistics and look at overall crime statistics. You'll see that these other countries aren't exactly paradise on Earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:10 PM

18. i guess all the other nations are stupid and the governments will enslave the populations

watch out England, France, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Portugual, India, and Japan! Your governments may enslave you!! Be warned.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:15 PM

20. You take a very short view of history nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:33 PM

22. Ummm three of those countries

still have the gun laws of when their governments did. Might want to look up gun ownership rates and gun laws of Finland and Switzerland. If the MAIG sponsored poll is correct, our current gun ownership rate is about the same as France's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 11:14 AM

65. Who does?

I've read the quip 'more guns, less crime' but I haven't read where 'more guns' leads to 'less crime'. Have you?

If so where? Share a link, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alabama_for_obama (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:17 PM

76. Vermont's gun death rate is only exceeded by one state in their Northwest Region

The FBI (and other governmental organizations) categorizes the country into Regions, Geographic Division and States.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/standard-links/region

Vermont is in the Northeast region, New England division with Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Of those six states Vermontís gun death rate of 9.7 per 100,000 (below the National figure of 10.2) is higher than the six others in their New England division. The rest of the Northeast Region is the Middle Atlantic division N. Y. 4.9, New Jersey 4.7 and the only state in the ten state Northeast Region with a higher gun death rate at 10.7, Pennsylvania.
Most recent avail 2009 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 60, No. 3, December 29, 2011
See Table 19 page 146 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Unreasonable to compare Vermont to Chicago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #76)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:23 PM

77. gun death or gun murder?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #77)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:11 PM

83. Can you read?

Why should I be deceptive or dishonest? I stated & posted gun death rate in response to posters #6 where he posted re Vermont ; ď has IIRC the lowest gun deaths and gun crime in the nation. huh.Ē
He posted regarding gun deaths, I posted figures regarding gun deaths and you want to change the subject?
If you want to provide information about something else, go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #83)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:23 PM

85. I can read quite well

Your statistic includes suicides, which make up most gun deaths. Vermont is going to have more guns used in suicides than Chicago for the same reason Norway is going to have more than UK.

His OP specifically says gun murders. While I am sure you are literate in the English language, your ability to notice important details is lacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #85)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:09 PM

87. Your ability to read is still in question, quit digging.

Talk about pot calling kettle black.
You're lost and confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #87)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:37 PM

88. No, I went and closely the CDC table.

murders and "injuries by firearms" are different things. Murder is specific. The CDC combined accidents, suicides, justifiable homicide, and murder. I'm beginning to question your reading skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:47 PM

12. Seems then that we should have half the worlds violent crime

 

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers donít flatter America.


Only if you work on the assumption that guns are evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:21 AM

57. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Another instance of the USA being the richest nation on Earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:05 AM

59. Obviously if you have 80 million gun owners and 300 million firearms ...

you will see some tragedies caused by firearms.

But let's look at who causes these tragedies.

How many gun deaths are in the US every year?

Answer:

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States.
Since a firearm is an inanimate object, it can not be the sole creator/ root cause of a death as it must be handled by a person in order to be fired.
A more accurate description is approximately 16,000 suicides using a firearm
Approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009
Approximately 600 justifiable defensive shootings by both police and citizens.
The remainder in accidental firearms discharges
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year


Suicides compose the majority of deaths caused by firearms. It is true that a firearm can make a suicide quick and easy, however there are many ways to commit suicide. A person who wishes to do so can accomplish it even without access to a firearm. Limiting or banning firearm possession would do little to reduce the suicide rate. A better and cheaper healthcare system might reduce this number, possibly significantly.

If 80% of the murders caused by firearms are caused by criminals and criminal gangs that would mean that 8901 were the result of gangs fighting over turf or by people who make or supplement their income in an illegal manner. Only 3342 homicides are the results of previously honest people deciding to use their firearms to kill others.

It would seem logical that attacking the gang problem in our nation might make far more impact on gun violence than banning or greatly restricting firearm ownership for honest people without mental issues.

I feel that first our nation has to admit that we have lost the War on Drugs and our continuing efforts to do so have only resulted in far more organized crime. First we could legalize some drugs such as marijuana which would take much of the profit motive out of smuggling and dealing illegal substances. We than can take much of the money we waste attempting to stop the smuggling of marijuana and use to fight criminal gangs. I feel that these gangs should be considered terrorist organizations as they do indeed terrorize the streets of our nation.

Of course it would also be a good idea to correct the problems with our educational system in order to provide our youth with the knowledge and skills to obtain a good job rather than have to join a criminal gang. We also need to generate jobs that pay a living wage.

The alternative is that we could attempt to pass a lot of "feel good" laws such as another assault weapons ban which will do little good and will cause Democrats to lose seats in Congress and possibly the Presidency in a close election. Such ideas sound great if you seriously believe the propaganda pushed by the organizations who wish to impose draconian gun laws.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:13 PM

7. it's the mental state of people who own and use guns - beyond legislating really nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 06:12 PM

28. i'd rather have a mental person have access to a club than a machine gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:31 PM

30. a "mental person" cannot legally own a machine gun now

 

Requirements to own a Class III weapon ?

*You have to live in a state where Class III weapons are legal.
*You have to be a US citizen.
* At least 21 yoa.
* Never been convicted of a Felony or Domestic Violence.
* Never been disshonarbly discharged from the military.
* Never been adjuticated mentally defective.

*Machineguns are ILLEGAL for individuals in DE, DC, HI, NY, WA
* ONLY Class 3 dealers are allowed possession in CA, IL, IA, KS, MI, NJ, RI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:17 PM

39. apparently john holmes was already seeing a psychiatrist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:35 PM

43. a judge did not declare him mentally incompetent

that whole due process thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:54 PM

44. then there's the access to powerful weapons that can be used to massacre innocent people in a theatr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:15 AM

47. I won't bore you with technical reasons

why powerful is not really accurate term to use. Suffice to say, he could have used more lethal means. Firebombs for starters. Tell me, how would gun control advocates react if he used an illegal automatic weapon? Say, an MP-5 stolen from a police department? (like LAPD, since they lost some of theirs a while back).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:34 AM

51. we would look at tightening up the protocols at Police Departments

if he used firebombs, we would look at ways to make this more difficult.

We seem to value life and its protection, and don't put barriers up to determine the best way of doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:17 PM

61. better start with LAPD

They lost some of theirs. Having an armory in an abandoned building with no alarm system was a stupid idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:47 PM

62. you're right about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:55 PM

75. Not to mention that he did not

use a machine gun nor did he use an assault rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 08:51 AM

48. John Holmes

 

did NOT own a machine gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:36 AM

53. i didn't say he did. but i did refer to a machine gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #53)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:37 AM

58. I'm sure this was a minor mistake...

...but to be clear:



John Holmes - porn star





James Holmes - murdering nutcase

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #39)


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:25 PM

17. This is a seriously relevant question.

 

It is simple, specific, directly to the point.

My honest, long considered answer is Gun Control Laws are not the answer to the problem, They ARE the problem. It would be amazing to watch the gun violence in Chicago and other similar areas fall like a rock if the honest, law abiding citizens could shoot back without our legal system destroying their lives for having defended themselves.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:11 PM

19. why don't we try it in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:23 PM

21. They *have* tried it in Texas- Houston has half the murder rate of Chicago.

I wouldn't claim Texas is paradise on earth, but if gun laws really drove crime rates, Burlington, Vermont should resemble Aleppo on a bad weekend.
(Spoiler: it doesn't at all...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:18 PM

40. houston is a tiny city compared to Chicago

Chicago has a lot of gang and drug related violence. This goes back to the roaring twenties, the Great Depression, and the infamous Chicago Mafia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:34 PM

42. which supports our point

Chicago's problem is with the gangs and the drug culture that fuels it, not the mostly rural gun culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:55 PM

45. i'm referring to the increased gun deaths

these are not caused by increased gun control but by the already violent gangs and drugs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:09 AM

46. I never said they were caused by increased gun control

said there is a correlation. correlation does not equal causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:35 AM

52. other threads have made this comment

in fact i would argue that asking for more guns to stop gun violence is saying that fewer guns result in more gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:11 AM

56. Houston and Chicago are similar in size.

Population of Houston: 2,145,146 - Jul 2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau


Population of Chicago: 2,707,120 - Jul 2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 11:29 AM

60. Horseshit. They both have over 2 million people:

http://www.census.gov/popfinder/
Houston

http://www.census.gov/popfinder/?fl=4835000
Population
Total Population
2,099,451

Chicago
Population
Total Population 2,695,598

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:29 PM

71. The FIREARM HOMICIDE rate has been higher in Houston.

With the most recent figures I can find for Violence-Related FIREARMS Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006ó2007 there were eight cities with firearm homicide rates of almost double the two year average of Chicagoís.
City of Newark, New Jersey 25.4 firearm homicide rate per 100,000
City of Miami, Florida 23.7
City of Detroit, Michigan 35.9
City of Oakland, California 26.6
City of St. Louis, Missouri 24.1
City of Baltimore, Maryland 29.7
City of Richmond, Virginia 23.1
City of New Orleans, Louisiana 62.1
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm?s_cid=mm6018a1_w
Thereís another dozen or so cities with firearms homicide rates higher than Chicagoís but didnít make the DOUBLE level including Houston.
Numbers and annual rates (per 100,000) of firearm homicides and suicides for the 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), by age group --- United States, 2006--2007*

U posted "Houston has half the murder rate of Chicago".

Houstonís FIREARM homicide rate for the two year average 2006-2007 is higher than Chicagoís
City of Houston, Texas 12.9
City of Chicago, Illinois 11.6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #71)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 01:37 PM

74. so are people being murdered by other means

less tragic? I don't even get the logic of singling out one weapon or means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #74)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:33 PM

78. Logic? Excuse me.

If I copied the OP correctly;
"If gun control laws are so good why does Chicago (with some of most restrictive gun control laws in the nation) have such a high gun crime rate?"
The (Group) title, and this thread, with the word "GUN" used three times in one sentence, made me think statistics regarding guns/firearms might be relevant. Sorry to confuse you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #78)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:45 PM

79. OK so why does Chicago have such a high rate

twice as high as Phoenix?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #79)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:02 PM

86. Lot's of reasons.

Why? I donít know. There are hundreds if not thousands of researchers trying to figure out those kind of things.
High rate of what? Murders?
In my # 71 I searched to find most recent available CREDIBLE source of firearm homicide rates of US cities to get a perspective on Chicago. I provided my source. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm?s_cid=mm6018a1_w
At that site you can see Phoenix had a firearm homicide rate of 10.6 per 100,000 Chicago 11.6. Thatís about 9%, (not twice as high) higher than Phoenix.
Do you know why those seven of eight cities I listed had firearms homicide rates at least double (thatís twice as high) Chicagoís?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russ1943 (Reply #86)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 10:42 PM

89. the OP said it was high, not the highest.

so what's your point? Mine "murder rate" yours was "gun murder rate" see the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #89)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 07:42 PM

91. Guns somehow make you deader? That's all I'm getting from that....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:02 PM

32. It has been tried, and detailed statistics are available online.


In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly four (4) murder convictions. Out of the general population there were 553 convictions for murder in its various forms.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.


In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus four innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:22 PM

41. pardon me

"It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. " The detailed stats you provide are appreciated and worth understanding. However, there is no evidence to support the statement in quotes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 10:07 AM

55. None of the shall-issue states has had any movement to rescind shall-issue.

About 40 states (+/- a couple) are shall-issue regarding concealed carry. Of those states not a single one has had any citizen movement to go back to restrictive or no-carry. It appears to be working in all of those states. Perhaps Chicago should try the same things that are working in other major cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 03:35 PM

23. Wow! Thank you.

 

I appreciate

1. your comment about the OP
2. a direct response to the question as opposed to some off topic side step, and
3. your serious response (though reply #1 by rrneck gave me quite a chuckle) to what I intended as a serious question

I was hoping to elicit some discussion from gun control law proponents as to why they thought Chicago had a high gun crime rate despite highly restrictive gun laws. But I guess that was too much to hope for. All I see is some anti-gun pablum shifting the discussion away from the point in the OP to some other point that they want to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:49 PM

26. You could put some facts about Chicago's laws and crime rates up on the thread

...instead of just putting a booger on the screen. Use google or something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:26 PM

29. Valid point

 

Here is some info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
Local laws

Illinois does not have state preemption of firearm laws, and some local governments have passed laws that are more restrictive than those of the state. Some municipalities, most notably Chicago, require that all firearms be registered with the local police department. Chicago also prohibits the sale of firearms within city limits. Cook County has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons, as well as magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Other municipalities have also enacted various firearm restrictions. Lack of preemption makes it difficult to travel throughout Illinois with a firearm while being sure that no laws are being broken.


Some crime info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago

Chicago's murder rate is also currently quadruple that of New York and double Los Angeles' rate.



http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/illinois/chicago.html
The city violent crime rate for Chicago in 2009 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 162.11% and the city property crime rate in Chicago was higher than the national property crime rate average by 39.94%.

In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Chicago was higher than the violent crime rate in Illinois by 126.41%



http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/06/20/2011-fbi-violent-crime-stats-gun-ownership-upcrime-rates-drop/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:02 PM

33. Chicago could do "stop and frisk" like New York and then you would be happy

If bringing down the crime rate is what you want (presumably).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:35 PM

34. So what do you want?

 

It seems reasonable to me that the goal of gun control laws should be to reduce crime and gun related deaths. I infer that is not what you want. I'm not sure where you stand on the issue. Are you for stricter gun control laws? If so, what do you think is the objective of implementing gun control laws?

Regrading stop and frisk. I haven't formed a strong opinion. On one hand I abhor the violation of search and seizure. On the other hand it seems like those communities felt it necessary. I don't know enough about it to venture a guess as to its efficacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:04 AM

63. Fortunately federal law trumps state law in this regard.

And they can't/couldn't stop you from traveling through Chicago with a legally owned firearm on your way to another place where you can legally own that firearm. The gun of course would have to be in a locked case in the trunk, with any ammo kept separately.

I looked into this when moving once, because I was going to have to drive across Indiana, a place that at the time had some bizzarre gun laws.

New York state can't stop you from driving through from one place to another with a pistol in a locked box in your trunk, despite the fact that they want any pistol in the state registered at all times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:09 PM

25. As always

 

It's the old 1-2 gun-reigionist dance.

1) repeat NRA Talking Point (lots of time a Strawman, devoid of logic, like this one)
2) congratulate one's self for being such a great, super-logical debater

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:37 PM

31. "reigionist"

 

what does that mean? can't find the definition.

BTW I don't view the OP as a strawman. If the goal of gun control is to reduce/eliminate gun crime and gun related deaths then demonstrate where the implementation of more gun control laws have achieved the goal.

....unless the goal is just to keep people from having something that you don't like (i.e., guns). Then I'll agree it will reduce the number of people the possess guns. It just won't reduce crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:56 PM

36. being such a major city, could Chicago be more complicated than some of the others?

e.g. could there be more gangs? education issues? drug trafficking? How can you prove the correlation of the touch gun laws with the increased crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:06 PM

38. there is a coorelation

Most likely has more to do with gang politics than anything else. That is something that has to be seriously studied instead of wasting time with theater and scapegoating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:21 AM

49. WTF?

 

How does Chicago being a major city answer the question of what is the definition of "reigionist"? The what the point of this sub-thread. What will you reply with to this? A pie recipe? That would be equally unrelated to the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #49)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:32 AM

50. i was trying to respond to bong-bong- whom i agree with- i should have responded one level above the

subthread

i wasn't responding to your question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:00 PM

37. here's the interesting thing

when a gun control advocate finds a situation like Chicago except going the otherway, the argument from gun supporters is to question the correlation between the gun control legislation and the drop in crime.

what is the correlation, if there is one, between the gun control legislation and a hugely complicated city like Chicago? In fact, I would think that at one point there were lax gun laws and lots of violence. Gun control was probably brought in past a violence tipping point. This would be like waiting to bail water in a sinking ship, and then being told to put more water into the ship to make it stay afloat because the bailing isn't helping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 09:56 AM

54. You are making a basic, and common, mistake.

You are considering all gun ownership as being equal in its effect. But a gun owned by a violent criminal will not have the same effect as a gun owned by a law-abiding citizen. The violent criminal will use his gun for evil while the law-abidng will use his gun for good. You are looking at all gun ownership as being evil.

To compare it to your ship analogy, if the ship is listing to port and there is a hole at the waterline, then counter-flooding on starboard to bring the ship to an even keel and keep the hole above the waterline until it is patched, and can save the ship.

Guns owned and carried by law-abiding citizens can work to counter the effects of the guns of violent criminals. But in Chicago, there are extremely few guns in the hands of the law-abiding. All attempts to reduce the number of guns effect only the law-abiding good gun ownership while leaving the bad gun ownership untouched.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:59 PM

27. Because they have a lot of criminals

 

which commit a lot of crime. That's what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:41 PM

80. This post is just poorly reasoned. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #80)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:59 PM

81. It is a simple question

there are no simple answers, if that is what you mean. It is a reasonable question to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #81)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:02 PM

82. FYI: Some say there are no stupid questions.

The truth is that you have to ask a smart question to get a smart answer, ask a stupid question and you'll get stupid answers.

Simple answer: Chicago doesn't have an electrified 20 ft fence around it. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 09:20 PM

84. Neither does El Paso

Yet it has a much lower murder rate than even Canadian cities. El Paso's murder rate is 1/5 of Thunder Bay's, and half of Vancouver's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

So, your simple answer is a very dumb answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread