Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SteveBailey on April 20, 2008, 12:15:44 PM
-
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 (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. :lol
-
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 (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. :lol
Yep, I'm sure the law abiding citizens are unarmed.
-
Yep pretty sad up there, thank goodness i live 100 miles away. The problem is the gang bangers and drug pushers are moving out out of the cities. We just had the largest drug bust in our counties history a few weeks ago. 2 of the guys busted lived here in the same town i do! Nice to see american law abideing citizens restricted from owning handguns and the criminals so well armed. :(
-
Yep, I'm sure the law abiding citizens are unarmed.
All the law abiding citizens are unarmed, at least as far as handguns go. If they own one, they aren't law abiding.
-
Ive seen weekends with a dozen or more kilt. Things is you have to be hit really hard to be put down for good here. Ive seen em lose their blood pressure in the bambulance, CFD keep some blood pumping on the ride into trauma, then they open em up like chickens and kick start the heart directly. Then its right into emergency surgery and the taxpayer ends up eating the bill for county ER doing their Lazarus thing all to keep an 18 yo gangsta alive and in operation for another round of gagsta'ing.
-
Maybe the first tat a gangsta should get is DNR across their forehead. :aok
-
Violent cultures begin with parenting.
-
Maybe the first tat a gangsta should get is DNR across their forehead. :aok
lol should be a requirement.
-
Violent cultures begin with parenting.
peers have something to do with it too, unfortunately.
-
Maybe the first tat a gangsta should get is DNR across their forehead. :aok
:aok
-
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. A couple of incidents happened in an area that went through an anti alcohol campaign a few years back. That was supposed to help clean up the area. It was also where the greatest resistance to a few anti-gang ordinances that were suggested. Now their sober and Poscar'ed off. There was even an incident in the governor's neighborhood.
Now we have an earlier curfew for minors and if we're lucky soon those danged little baggies will be outlawed, all we need to do is add a few dozen more warm bodies to the "gang task force" and that should do the trick.
WTFG Daley.
-
During that same time I bet a thousand moving violations were handed out to middle class family types and there was backup at every stop.
We also have tens of thousands of alphabet soup ninjas who break in the doors of middle class homes in good neighborhoods in the middle of the night while pretending the bad sections of town don't exist.
Do any of you think you would feel safer in chicago if they passed more gun bans or would you rather be armed?
lazs
-
Gangs exist for the weak. Most folks can stand on their own..... folks in gangs need support.
-
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.
-
Update. Since friday till monday morning 38 shootings in chicago. :(
-
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.
Criminals can always buy guns. Banning handguns did nothing to disarm bad guys, it merely made sheep of the law abiding public.
-
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.
-
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.
You merely post to inflame and incite. Do you ever actually have anything thoughtful and pointed to say?
-
Wow .....there are so manys shootings I got tired of reading them all....now thats alot of shootings.
-
I wish that newspapers & tv stations would run the gory, bloody, photos/film of the crime scenes where these gangbangers died. Maybe if enough kids & gangbangers saw that they might go..."wow....that could be me". And it probably WILL be some day.
Back in the 1930's newspapers ran photos of mafia hits. It showed the horror of what happened to people who got involved in the rackets.
Gun control? These gangbangers would be using steak knives if left to no other weapon.
ROX
-
I hear what your saying and understand, I'm kind of conflicted on the whole issue. But I tend to hold fairly unpopular opinions on most hot topics.
One cannot argue that if you do away with access to firearms, all things being equal, they will be over time less available to the criminal element. That means our kids are safer from stray bullets. A good thing.
But I can say I've had my day saved by having an equalizer close at hand. As have others. It's just that so many of us are legally able to do many potentially harmful things and we do so with frightening regularity. As arrogant as it seems, I'm good with having access to firearms, I'm just not sure how I feel about the collective you having that same access.
Education, tough licensing standards, public awareness, etc. are all good ideas but that means we have to trust that those elements be administered and policed effectively for them to work. I don't believe that will be the case.
One of the incidents involved a Kalashnikov. God knows how it was obtained but most likely not on the streets of Beirut. Probably started life as a perfectly legal sale properly documented and everything. Now it's evidence in a murder investigation. I can't help think there's a breakdown in the process somewhere. Fix the process and there should be no need for firearm prohibition.
I will say that were it not for some form of gun control I bet the areas where most of these incidents took place would quickly come to resemble the streets of Beirut, Mogadishu, or Mosul.
-
One cannot argue that if you do away with access to firearms, all things being equal, they will be over time less available to the criminal element. That means our kids are safer from stray bullets. A good thing.
Handguns have been banned in Chicago for over 25 years. Chicago has seen no decrease in gun violence as a result of the ban. So one could argue what you suggest, they'd just be wrong.
For instance, in Phoenix you can carry handguns openly pretty much all you want yet it has a lower murder rate than Chicago.
-
"Handguns have been banned in Chicago for over 25 years."
But they are available less than a mile from the city proper. There's nothing to argue, be it right or wrong, remove the retail aspect and the availability to the dirtbags declines.
Personally I prefer a different strategy but it would be predicated on a certain degree of official accountability. Sorry for the contradiction in therms.
-
Gee Steve, out of the 32 people shot in Chicago over the weekend how many of them were NOT gang and/or drug related? One? How many were in the worst crime ridden areas of town? All of them?
I don't see how this is a gun control issue- it's more of a policing issue, a sentancing issue, and a social issue. That's my point, Steve- and if disagreeing with you "annoys" you then tough.
-
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.
-
Yes, but all you would achieve is giving the downtrodden another bullet to shoot at society and demand more reparations for slavery. See! whitey done went and gived our poor folk free drugs just to make it easy to keep them down! Give us back our guns so as we can defend ouselfs :rolleyes:
-
I didn't say anything about free. :)
I see this as a tax source the Dems can jack to the roof!
-
If you tax drugs too much you defeat the purpose of making them legal. the drug dealers will stay in business and the gang wars will continue.
As for guns being the problem? why is it always in the areas where guns are banned that the most shootings occur?
Thruster.. I trust myself with handguns.. I also "trust" you with em.. Just like I trust you hurtling at me head on at 60mph in a two ton car almost every day. You could kill me in a blink with one little flick of the wrist and your car.
lazs
-
You can easily tax drugs as much as cigarettes or alcohol.
It'd be the old bait and switch anyway. You start out low tax, put the dealers out of biz because once it is legal open competition sets in, you maintain penalties for possessing without the sacred tax stamp just like a liquor bottle or a pack of cigs. The buyers will prefer a brightly lit store with lots of choices to a dark back alley where they might get mugged.
You make it easy enough, you put the dealers out of business the same way we did with bootleggers.
After a while, you can raise taxes.
-
You can easily tax drugs as much as cigarettes or alcohol.
It'd be the old bait and switch anyway. You start out low tax, put the dealers out of biz because once it is legal open competition sets in, you maintain penalties for possessing without the sacred tax stamp just like a liquor bottle or a pack of cigs. The buyers will prefer a brightly lit store with lots of choices to a dark back alley where they might get mugged.
You make it easy enough, you put the dealers out of business the same way we did with bootleggers.
After a while, you can raise taxes.
That's why you drive to the Indian reservations.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"? :lol 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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". :lol
-
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.
.
-
"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.
-
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.morganquitno.com/cit02r.pdf)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html (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 (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 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.?
-
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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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. :salute
-
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?
-
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 (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. :lol
Honest Citizens abide by the Laws.... No matter how much control you have, the criminals will not.. But you knew that
-
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 (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2205)
-
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
-
It's kind of funny how some focus on the tool rather than the other underlying and probably more causative factors. It seems most, if not almost all of the shootings were gang related. Of course we must not infringe on criminal gang activity we must look at an inanimate object instead. Gangs are good, right?