Violent weekend in Chicago

[SteveBailey]

Steve,

You're not addressing the issue. I

Maybe I'll try to look at numbers from two major cities with and without gun bans.

Uhhh like  Phoenix and Chicago

Dude, are you reading what I post at all?

[SteveBailey]

Steve,



Phoenix metro - About 3 million.

Chicago metro - About 11 million

.

So you went from city proper to metro areas included.  Do you always change the discussion topic when you  couterpoints have been made?

[SteveBailey]

about the only thing I agree with Steve on is that inner city gangsters, the type of which shoot each other and make Hillary Clinton call for gun bans, don't give two shakes about ANY laws, and that restrictions on gun ownership are a violation of our 2nd amendment rights. Other than that- (shrug) sorry, that's how I see it.

Airhead, your above quote was the point of my original post, quite literally.  What are we arguing about?

[SteveBailey]

Thruster, how about we compare murder rate?  That is, murders per 100k of people.  This will enable us to compare cities with differring populations.

Again, here's Phoenix, with it's huge population of illegal immigrants and it's closeness to the Mexican border exascerbating crime : 15.4 

Here's Chicago, with it's  own problems such as being an older city with it's share of inner city blight: 16.4

So, once again we see that the gun ban in Chicago has done nothing to curb the murder rate.


Interestingly enough, LA has a lower murder rate than Chicago.

[Toad]

I'm sure you are familiar with the Swiss example and experience?

As far as what Steve has provided, it seems nothing will satisfy you. When he gave AZ vs IL stats, you said that was too large an area. When he went to city proper, that was too small and you suggested adding in all the suburbs.. of course, the state was too large. It seems there may be no exact set of data that will fulfill your requirements.

As for nation to nation there are a lot of obvious things. The Swiss being one. The fact that England's firearms homicide rate/100k remain essentially unchanged no matter where you draw the start line. This despite ever increasing gun control right up to a ban on handguns; all the additional laws did not reduce their gun homicide rate in this extremely homogeneous society. Now that they are increasingly racially diverse, firearms homicides are becoming more of a problem despite a handgun ban and extremely strict overall gun control.

Another little tidbit is that in 3 or 4 studies conducted on concealed carry license holders it's found that they have an overall rate of gun related crime than their associated local police forces.

The evidence is all around. It may not be in the exact format one desires but it is there nonetheless.

[Thruster]

"So you went from city proper to metro areas included.  Do you always change the discussion topic when you  couterpoints have been made?"

Only trying to work with you while you evade the issue. Just attempting to put your out of context submission into perspective.

"Dude, are you reading what I post at all?"

I thought I was, it looks like a point-counterpoint discussion save your attempts to make the data fit your supposition.

"Again, here's Phoenix, with it's huge population of illegal immigrants and it's closeness to the Mexican border exacerbating crime"

Yeah we have a pretty huge latin population here too, many if not mostly illegals, estimated at 1.5 million, just about equaling the entire Phoenix population. Not to mention the other ethnicities that are becoming a problem by importing their habits here.


Dude, help me out. I don't have any dog in this race, I just look at the facts. I say maybe other countries with more stringent gun control have fewer gun crimes per capita and you say BS! look at Morton Grove, look at Phoenix, look at L.A.

I even try to work with you to get a basis that's relevant and this is what we get? It's a simple question. What country has both limited access to firearms AND a higher gun crime rate than the U.S.?

[lazs2]

thruster.. to answer your question.. well.. I think others here have but.. 

to compare our country to others is never very good thinking.  but.. let's just compare the gun laws themselves..  england and oz never really had a very high homicide rate.. at one time there were no restrictions on firearms...  what firearms laws changed the murder rate?  what laws made things safer?  the homicide rate stayed the same even tho the laws got more and more draconaian.  there was no firearms problem to solve.

I think it is because we live in a very vibrant and multicultural society that is full of opportunity and individual freedom..  I am sure that if we were willing to give those things up.. we would be safer from homicides.. we would not be safer from violent crime.. they are victims of bullies.. they are violent crime victims and half the burglaries in england happen with the homeowner cowering in a closet.

I am not willing to live like a your-0-peean to save some gangbangers lives.

lazs

[Thruster]

No lasz the questions' still out there.

It was simply a rebuttal to those that want to live in denial.

I agree, I think the criminal code needs to be abbreviated to a few paragraphs. Way too may laws and not enough resources to manage them properly. We just skip from one hot button to another without regard for the process.

I've said it countless times, the theory works it's the application that's faulty. I just don't know how we can provide the lifestyle we all "want" and still come to terms with human nature. Facts are facts. Take guns out of a population and gun crime diminishes. Only the most unredeemable idiot would challenge that simple logic. It's really about if we should, or if we can.

I still say the onus falls on the law enforcement industry. Not just the cops, or judges, or probation officers. ALL of them. They need to stop behaving like government employed functionaries and start earning the respect we want to give them and they so obviously crave.

I'm tired of having to accommodate governmental incompetence. The dollars wasted by our public employees is unconscionable. Every time I hear about yet another expenditure for the purpose of "streamlining" or "modernizing" or "to enhance efficiencies" I wonder what happened to the last investment made to improve public service and why didn't it work.

We all know why, no accountability.

Too big a fish to fry here. But that's my take.

By the way, it's interesting to note the relative decline of firearm related officer deaths in Chicago since the gun ban was introduced.

[vorticon]

"Facts are facts. Take guns out of a population and gun crime diminishes. Only the most unredeemable idiot would challenge that simple logic."


facts are facts.  this, and every other monthly gun control thread on this board are full of them. 

no facts seem to support your simple logic.

[Toad]

Gun crime didn't diminish when they banned handguns in England; it essentially stayed the same.

Gun crime didn't go up in Switzerland when nearly everyone had a super deadly black assault weapon in the home.

[Rich46yo]

Thruster I am leaving this thread with the simple statement that your a fool and dont have any idea what you are talking about.

Really, to a guy like me that has been doing this for so long you come across as a total blowhard. Even worse an absurd one.

To everyone else, long live the 2nd amendment and the American right to keep and bear arms.

[SteveBailey]

Facts are facts. Take guns out of a population and gun crime diminishes.

Show me one example of this.

Where handguns are banned, other crimes go up significantly.

I say maybe other countries with more stringent gun control have fewer gun crimes per capita and you say BS!

I missed this... where exactly did I say this?

[68ZooM]

At least the gangbangers are shooting each other, primarily. It would be nice if they could kill each other without collateral damage.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704117.html

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  Glad to see it's working so well.   

Honest Citizens abide by the Laws.... No matter how much control you have, the criminals will not..  But you knew that

[iWalrus]

The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.

It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.

From a very interesting article. you can read the full thing here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2205

[lazs2]

thruster.. if your theory were true.. or even possible.. that taking the guns out of society would reduce the gun crime.. then it would be obvious that adding guns would make the gun crime go up.   This is where it all falls apart for you. 

Allowing citizens to carry does not increase gun crime so therefore.. the guns have nothing to do with it.  It must be the people.    Is that clear enough?  logical enough?   the facts bear it out.   

Soooo.. what you are saying is that since it is the violent people who commit the gun crime.. if we disarm the other 99% or so of the population that don't commit gun crime... that somehow we will be better off.

You may be right.. there may be some slight drop in gun crime... since it would be slightly harder to get a gun but.. why would we want home invasions to escalate or stabbings or whatever like in england?   

If we use other countries examples.. we see that their homicide rate does not go down (gun homicides may) but their crimes like burglary and assault go up.

So it remains.. you would disarm everyone and make them helpless just so that people stab you or throw you out a window instead of shooting you?

Here is the real logic behind the thing.. the crook is young and strong and cruel.  The only defense that works against him or a group of him... the only effective restraint or defense for the vast majority of us is a firearm.  we can only beat his force with the firearm.

lazs