Violent weekend in Chicago

[Dowding]

Which is more dangerous - an alcoholic or a heroin addict? Which is most likely going to be struggling to get any money together to fund their habit, regardless of its source? How many heroine addicts hold down a job for years before their body caves in?

I think I know the answer. Anyone else care to offer an opinion?

[Thruster]

Lasz,

Thanks for the faith, but I think you know what I mean. Comparing guns to automobiles is on one hand a decent metaphor but not by any means analogous.

I would like to offer an opinion re:"why is it always in the areas where guns are banned that the most shootings occur?"

My feeling is that both are resultant of urban areas. stack people on top of each other and you get the friction that ends so often with a violent solution and correspondingly municipalities tend to take a blanket approach when devising solutions. Most heavy population centers bear a lot of criminal activity, guns are the tool of choice for the most egregious of these incidents, few city dwellers have much use for a gun than to hurt somebody else ergo, they control access to them. I don't believe they are correspondent at all. Like asking why so many shootings occur where there are so many handicapped parking signs or ....pigeons.

One could easily ask why are there so fewer per capita shootings in countries that practice strict gun regulation or why are there so many more in areas that practice none at all?

Regulating firearms in a city where they are fairly easy to obtain a few minutes away is not a good example.

My fear is that to make society truly safer by allowing everybody to pack is going to require oversight that is impracticable and probably as distasteful as our current set of solutions if not more so.

[SteveBailey]

I don't see how this is a gun control issue-

That's your problem.  You don't see.  You refuse to see even when it is clearly pointed out to you.  You argue merely for argument's sake, not to make any points whatsoever.

I'll try to spell it out for you why it is a gun control issue one more time. Then you can post some more inane retorts and we'll move on, ignoring you for the most part I'd imagine since you argue without position or logic.  You just like to argue.

It's a gun control issue because the criminals still, and always will, have acesss to guns.  All the gun contol laws do is to serve to disarm the public, creating a limitless supply of unarmed victims for criminals to exploit.  The gun ban in Chicago has done nothing to curb gun violence Maybe it has even increased violence since criminals do not have to fear law abiding citizens because they cannot defende themselves.  The gun control laws only hurt the general populace, making them easier targets.

[SteveBailey]

But they are available less than a mile from the city proper.

Yes but they are illegal to possess inside the city limits, not just purchase.  So, obviously, all the hand gun ban serves to do is prevent your average law abiding civilian ther ability to defend him/herself.  The criminals will continue to use them on a helpless populace. Again, the ban on handguns did not reduce gun crime in Chicago.

[Rich46yo]

Sorry to disappoint you Lazs, but I doubt it. You forget we're talking about Chicago, they have to get REAL bored to make a traffic stop. And just about the only middle class we have left here works for the city, but they get diplomatic immunity. The CPD knows full well where the bad sections of town are. They avoid 'em like the plague. But we do have these nifty surveillance cameras up all over the shady parts of town so they can see what the bad guys are doing. Most of them anyway.

I for one feel better being armed in this town. Problem is, if I can get a gun then so can everybody else. The idea of some of these yahoos having easy access to deadly force kinda scares me. At least now I can ID potential problems on sight alone.

              We avoid them like the plague? Have you lost your mind? Ive helped bury at least 1/2 dozen guys I personally knew and I wish I had a nickel for every person shot or shooting situation Ive walked into. Or project high rise. Or drug raid. We "avoid them"? BTW the cameras are about as useful as tits on a bull, you saw that last weekend, but thanks for chirping in with your expertise. "CPD avoids the bad sections of town"? Boy if that isnt the most stupid thing Ive ever read in this forum. And thats saying a lot.

[SteveBailey]

One could easily ask why are there so fewer per capita shootings in countries that practice strict gun regulation or why are there so many more in areas that practice none at all?

alright, let's ask it.  When England inacted their gun ban, the murder rate didn't go down at all. In fact, besides murder and rape, England has a much higher crime rate than here in the US, where guns are mostly commonplace. Why?

[SIK1]

Excuse the pun, but I think the entire US would get the best bang for the buck if we just declared defeat in the war on drugs, waved the white flag and put in a few drug aisles in the local liquor stores.

I doubt there's any denying that illegal drug sales are a root cause in all this inner city violence and a lot of suburban burlaries as well. Sort of reminds you of the old Elliot Ness "Untouchables", doesn't it? Lots of crime, lots of gang action and in the end the solution was to bow to the inevitable.

Time to legalize it, tax the hell out of it, prosecute as we do for alcohol related crime (IE: drunk driving, etc.) and let the brain dead have their way.

I tend to agree with Laz that there'll be no sudden overwhelming tsunami of drug addicts. We've had pretty much unresticted alcohol for decades and not everyone is a drunk. As for those that want to give away their lives to alcohol or drugs... we've never stopped them yet in any event.

Toad I agree with you about the war on drugs, but I don't think it will happen any time soon. If we were too stop the war on drugs we would take billions of dollars a year away from law enforcement agencies at all levels, (local, state, and federal). Without a war on drugs prison over crowding would be a thing of the past, so thousands of people that work for the prison systems, state, and federal would not have jobs.

Even if no money from taxation of drugs is considered the U.S.A. would save enough money to pay down the national debt in a matter of years, (if the boneheads in DC new how to balance a check book, which they obviously don't). Or better yet how about I pay less in taxes.

What has the war on drugs got us for our hard earned money. The highest per capita population in prison of a modern industrial country. Drugs are easier to get, and of higher quality than when this so called war was started. Home grown drug operations, marijuana, and meth run rampant through most of the country. What the government fails to learn is that morality can not be legislated. They did not learn the lesson of prohibition, and they have yet to learn it with the war on drugs.

I don't believe that drug abuse will run rampant, at least not anymore rampant than it is now, if there was no war on drugs. Drugs of all types were legal in this country at one time. Not only legal but available over the counter. The war on drugs is just another attempt to control the people of this country, and too usurp our rights, and freedom.

[Rich46yo]

Without question the biggest reason we have for crime here is in the denial of 2nd amendment rights for Chicago citizens.

I get a laugh out of those that think concealed carry legislation would "put a gun in the hands of everyone, good and bad". Thats just another aspect of Liberal trash talking elitism. It shows absolutely no knowledge of the actual facts regarding this legislation.

But politicians here will continue to take the easy out by blaming guns for everything. Its a lot safer then telling the people you want to vote for you to stop making throw away babies ans stop enabling the narco-gangster element. If Jackson or Sharpton actually told people to get their lazy butts off of welfare, quit sitting around all day smoking rock and letting your kids grow up on the street how long do you think either would last before they were forced to take a day job?

Yaknow In the last 24 years Ive seen this re-run movie so many times. Kid gets killed by gangsters. Kids momma wails at the press and TV. City leaders and reverends express outrage and blame guns. Candle night vigils. Kid is put in ground as cameras whirl. Swift action is taken cause this one hit the front page, "meanwhile all the other families of murder victims have to wait". Arrest is made, meanwhile during same time 5,000 more throwaway babies are born.

Its like a VHS tape on auto-rewind-play.

And it breaks my heart that the honest guys who worked his entire life, paid his taxes, lived honorably and lawfully, cannot even go to his neighborhood park due to the gang problems. Thats what the denial of 2nd amendment rights have given people here. The right to live in fear.

BTW Chicago aldermen and woman passed a bill years ago allowing their ownselfs to legally carry. And the mayor has an army protecting him and his family. So I guess its, "dont do as I do, do as I say".

[LTARGlok]

I love the logic that can twist a "32 people shot in Chicago over the weekend" thread into a pro gun thread. It would be like using a "32 people die in auto accidents over the weekend" thread into an anti speed limit, anti seat belt thread.

Only 9 people were killed in the Chicago shootings over the weekend.  27 additional people, however, were also wounded in the attacks.   So the total number of folks actually shot is 36, not 32.   But only a fraction of them actually died.  Here is a news report on the figures from local Chicago TV:

http://www.wrex.com/News/index.php?ID=28215

These casualties, which were from only a single US city, are actually higher than what US Military forces suffered in the war in Iraq over the same past weekend.

The problem with your analogy is that seat belts are not illegal for people to posses in Chicago.

Numerous politicians are stating that this outbreak shows that stronger gun controls are needed on both the state level in Illinois, as well as on the Federal level nation-wide.   Hillary Clinton immediately vowed in a speech on Monday to "get assault weapons off the streets", when she becomes President.   I'm not exactly sure what she may mean by her statement. 

And the Governor of Illinois immediately called upon the state legislature to pass stronger state-wide gun controls.   Here is a news story about that:

http://www.wbbm780.com/Blagojevich--Weekend-Shootings-Show-Need-For-Tight/2043232

An AK-47 was used in one of the shootings, and the Governor is thus now calling for a state-wide ban on the ownership of assault weapons.

.

[Thruster]

"Boy if that isnt the most stupid thing Ive ever read in this forum. And thats saying a lot."

You should go back and re-read your old posts.

"the cameras are about as useful as tits on a bull"

You could easily replace "t#ts on a bull" with "CPD".

You see, unlike you I know of which I speak. I'm all over the city every day.You can take your delusional war stories back to the mall or wherever you actually spend your day. I've seen you make some silly claims before and it's a shame that you feel the need to assume the persona of a real LEO to spout your blowhard opinions. It's also an insult to the guys and gals who actually are trying to do their jobs and make it home in one piece.

We have a serious void in Chicago in terms of police deployment. The guys on the force know it. It's a typical big city department that's seen so much tweaking over the years that now so much of the department is specialized it's lost the ability to adequately police the city.

We have the manpower and resources just not the will.

And Steve, you never addressed the question. I said before I was conflicted on the gun control issue. I have never really researched the issue prior to today, mainly just used common sense and data that has drifted past over the years. This morning I decided to look it up. I would have preferred to locate hard data that supports your claim. I would prefer a world where personal responsibility trumps stupidity and greed. I'd like to believe that compulsory gun ownership would create a more peaceful society. I've often said that the level of courtesy and respect for others practiced in years past was a direct result of not knowing whether the other guy was packing or whether he'd just as soon shoot you as look at you.

From what I can tell (there's a lot written on this subject) it seems to be a fact that countries with strict firearms regulation have a markedly lower per capita incidence of gun crimes than those without. I won't testify to it as fact but the only numbers I could find all show an obvious discrepancy between nations with or without. The article you apparently quoted doesn't address the actual question and oddly enough seems to avoid direct statistical comparison.

There does seem to be some decrease in per capita gun related deaths over the years. Again I have only briefed the data but it seems to correspond with advances in ER treatment and post trauma care. Nations with more limited access to advanced health care don't seem to be part of that trend.

As for myself, I'd like to see less firearms related deaths. Short of door to door gun sweeps and global restrictions on purchases I don't think gun control is the answer. I have very different ideas on that subject but this post has wandered way off topic as it is.

 

[SteveBailey]

 in Phoenix you can carry handguns openly pretty much all you want yet it has a lower murder rate than Chicago.

Thruster said:

I would have preferred to locate hard data that supports your claim

OK, here:   http://www.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
State Total murders1 Total firearms Handguns Rifles Shotguns Firearms (type unknown) Knives or cutting instruments Other weapons Hands, fists, feet, etc.2

Bold is handgun murders below.  Illinois has very strict handgun laws one of the strictest in the nation, Arizona has very lax handgun laws.
Arizona 462 343 269 33 14 27 53 46 20
Illinois3 487 392 380 4 6 2 46 35 14

Link for above stats:  http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html




Here's an interesting tidbit: In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

[Thruster]

Steve,

Thanks for the links. But I fear again we aren't looking at numbers that are relevant to the question. Comparing 2 bedroom communities has nothing to do with national gun control. I read a few articles about Kennesaw, some factored in national rates, population changes and actual reporting guidelines that apparently negated the benefit of compulsory ownership. I don't know about Morton Grove beside it's being one of 130 or so Chicago "suburbs" albeit a fairly nice one. It's not the same as comparing national stats between us and a different country.

I don't have the time but I presume the population discrepancy between Illinois and Arizona may dilute the impact of the gross numbers shown in the other link.

Per Capita distribution of gun crimes seems to increase in areas where the population is relatively dense, which also correspondingly tends to have a higher concentration of lower income residents. Maybe I'll try to look at numbers from two major cities with and without gun bans.

I look at New York City where they seem to have made a big impact across the board by simply putting cops out there and enforcing laws. I know there are some that will attempt to debunk those claims and I haven't the time but I'm pretty sure the initiative had an impact. That's along the lines of a solution I might favor. Does NYC ban handguns?

[SteveBailey]

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

Uhhh like  Phoenix and Chicago?

Phoenix Crime Report
   
General Information: Violent vs. Property Crime Rate:
State: Arizona (AZ) Violent Crime  Property Crime 
City Population: 1,403,228   
 
Murder: 241
Forcible Rape: 526
Robbery: 3,676
Aggravated Assault: 5,279
Burglary: 17,104
Larceny or Theft: 55,068
Car Theft: 25,651
Arson: 436
Data Source:
2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement 

Chicago Crime Report
   
General Information: Violent vs. Property Crime Rate:
State: Illinois (IL) Violent Crime  Property Crime 
City Population: 2,898,374   
 
Murder: 598
Forcible Rape: 0
Robbery: 17,302
Aggravated Assault: 19,784
Burglary: 25,064
Larceny or Theft: 96,779
Car Theft: 22,779
Arson: 947
Data Source:
2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement 

[Airhead]

At the risk of Steve launching into another tirade I'd like to point out that New York City and San Francisco, with some of the Nation's most Draconian gun laws, rank far below Phoenix in per capita murders. If I had an anti gun agenda I could site this stat as proof gun control works, but I don't have an agenda, and I sincerely believe there's more to the issue of inner city crime than gun laws, pro or con. It has more to do with poverty, lack of education, and enviroment than it does with gun laws- 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.

[Thruster]

Steve,

You're not addressing the issue. I suspect an attempt to employ only the stats that help your position. Neither Chicago or Phoenix are sovereign nations.

I wonder if you noticed 0 forcible rapes reported in your figures for Chicago. Does that mean mid-west girls are extra friendly?

I also think that for the purpose of your data you should have taken the "metropolitan area" into account.

Phoenix metro - About 3 million.

Chicago metro - About 11 million

I know that your figures are about the city propers. And who knows what numbers will emerge when all of the suburbs and unincorporated areas are polled but it seems we're really talking apples and oranges. Maybe if  we took a city with a more comparable profile to Chicago. Detroit, New York, New Orleans, Boston or D.C.. You know old population centers that have similar attributes. Not a town that's become a mecca for disenfranchised snowbirds looking to vacate the hassle and crime of say, Detroit, New York, New Orleans, Boston, D.C.

And remember, it still doesn't answer the question regarding other countries' experience with gun control.