Combatting the argument "If gun control works, Chicago ought to be safe."

42 posts / 0 new

I am so sick of co-workers and friends using this argument on why gun control should not be enacted, what is the best way to to come back at them when this line is brought up?

deggs
Joined:
Jan. 16, 2013 12:57 pm

Comments

Thinking for yourself and not asking someone else to answer for you is a start.

I lived in that cesspool of a city with restrictive gun laws and out of control crime and violence and I've also lived in other communities with relaxed gun laws and hardly any crime.

It wasn't gun control that made those other communities safe....it was the actual sense of community.

Jesse Jackson said that Newtown had a "gun culture" because they had 4 or 5 gun ranges, yet they had, I think, 1 murder in the last 10 years before this horrific tragedy.

Chicago has ZERO gun ranges. ZERO gun stores. Restrictive laws that require registration, training and taxes on all firearm purchases and they're leading the nation in murders.

How odd.

Now, everyone else will jump in and say that it's surrounding areas/states don't have the same restrictive gun laws and that's where the guns are coming from and that's why Chicago is suffering from this problem, but look at Wisconsin, Iowa, and Indiana and compare the crime statistics as these are all the surrounding states with much more relaxed laws and tell me how that makes any sense.

You want to fix the problem? Then address the problem.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote deggs:

I am so sick of co-workers and friends using this argument on why gun control should not be enacted, what is the best way to to come back at them when this line is brought up?

This item from today has some of the answers you are looking for:

1/16/13 -

Chicago is not safe because it’s impossible for this city, or any city, to wall itself off from the gun culture that has made the United States the nation with the highest per capita firearm ownership in the world. From allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004, to invalidating the city’s handgun ban in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago, Republicans have done everything they can to impose the values of rural gun owners on urban populations, where those values cause mayhem. As long as guns are legal everywhere, they’ll be used illegally somewhere.

Opinion: Gingrich Tries To Exploit Chicago Murders To Stop Gun Control

***

here are some articles from last month about the court striking down the Illinois concealed carry law (it's debatable whether this change makes Chicago less safe or more):

12/12/12 -

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a strong gun control advocate, said through a spokesman that he was "disappointed with the court's decision." In March, Emanuel introduced a City Council-approved resolution opposing state legislation that would have allowed people to carry firearms in public.

The ruling also could effectively undermine part of Chicago's gun ordinance, which prohibits possession of a registered firearm outside the home. The opinion could make it legal for a Chicagoan with a registered weapon to take it outside — something now prohibited by the city, even if it's on the owner's own outdoor porch or yard.

At issue is a provision of Illinois' five-decade-old criminal code involving the unlawful use of a weapon. Under the law, it is illegal for someone to carry or possess a firearm in a vehicle or conceal one on his or her body except on the person's own land or place of business. Exemptions exist for law enforcement, licensed hunters engaged in their activity and on established target ranges.

The appellate court overturned decisions by two downstate federal judges that upheld the state law. The new ruling concluded that if Illinois' law was "demonstrably superior," then at least one other state would have adopted it.

Illinois concealed carry ban tossed by federal appeals court

***

12/16/12 -

A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defense.

Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling Sets Stage For High Court Fight Over Right To Carry A Gun

***

12/23/12 -

Lawmakers from Southern Illinois will have a hand in crafting the state’s concealed-carry legislation, but they realize the Newtown, Conn., school shootings are likely to play a role in the newly-ordered law.

Concealed carry still an issue in Illinois

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Yep, right on cue. Quotes from the guys who think their draconian laws work, but it's the fault of everyone else as to why they don't.

As I said, look at the crime rates from the states surrounding Illinois and ask yourself why their relaxed gun laws haven't ended in the kind of violence that Chicago sees on a daily basis.

Do you just want to argue with your friends and co-workers or do you want to have a real discussion?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

more on the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the case of McDonald v. Chicago:

5 Things You Need To Know About McDonald v. Chicago

SUMMARY OF MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Individual city and state gun laws can't work in a free country where you and I are free to drive anywhere in the US and buy things that are legal in other places. There has to either be no freedom to travel or nationwide gun laws. Look at how many people are now flocking to Colorado just to buy weed. Most aren't going to stay in Colorado. They're going to take it back home with them.

On another note, I don't think that per capita, Chicago can even compete with Washington DC when it comes to crime.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Your missing the point. Why aren't those neighboring states with more "lax" gun laws not having the problems with gun violence and crime that Chicago has? They have urban areas too. Could the problem Chicago is having be related to something else, say, a culture of gangs, a culture of corruption? The same with DC.

Law abiding citizens with guns is not the problem. It is criminals and criminals don't give a shit what gun or any other laws there are.

It is eveident that Bush-Wacker is paranoid.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

I'm not paranoid or missing the point . The question was why is Chicago so full of guns and gun violence. The answer is because they can easily get guns. If you took away their ability to get guns then it wouldn't change the violent culture there, it would just change how they perpetuate the violence. The point I'm making is that banning guns has little effect when guns are so easily available elsewhere. It has nothing to do with criminals or criminal activity. That's more about the culture.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

So, why don't those places where Chicagoans are easily obtaining guns having the same problems with gun violence and crime? Guns aren't the problem, are they? Like you said it is a societal and cultural malady. So banning guns elsewhere (where they are easily available) would not alleviate Chicago's violent culture, criminals or criminal activity, right? Which is it? Is it the guns or the violent culture there? Would nationwide stricter gun control laws that only law abiding citizens would obey make Chicago or DC safer places? Or would they make you feel safer when you travel? With your logic, I would not travel to Chicago or DC. Not because of guns or the abscene of them, but because of the violent cultures.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

Why isn't rural neighboring regions having the gun violence and gang drug problems that Chicago has? Many of the little darlings immigrate from rural areas without jobs to urban centers that have jobs. They bring their young person troubles. Chicago is the swamp for the midwest, New Orleans and Miami and Atlanta, and Dallas and Houston, and Phoenix all fill that same need. The kids from the country come to the big city, some get jobs, many use drugs, they all add to the stress on the cities' social safety system.
And then they wind up in drug treatment back in the rural towns.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

I have never claimed that gun controls of any kind will stop criminals from being criminals. My thoughts on gun control are abour accidents and the average citizen mixing guns with alcohol and knee jerk reactions. I'm also concerned with people who have mentally snapped and decide to go shoot up schools and malls. Those people usually aren't criminals and have no criminal background. Those are the people that I hope to disarm at least a little bit with sensible gun controls.

If people want a criminal free safe world then they had better go hold up in a cave somewhere because you can't avoid it. We can help to avoid teenagers with amped up hormones and mental problems going on shooting sprees with gun controls. It's not going to be 100% effective. When it comes to guns the "gun nuts" they use that as an excuse to have no regulations. It's the same as having no laws against rape since rapists aren't going to abide by the laws anyway. It's ridiculous.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

And what, if anything, has been done or is attempting to be done that will prevent the Lanzas, Laughers, Holmes or Hasans from committing their atrosities? It is all feel-good, do-nothing, knee-jerk political postering, while restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. It is the agenda of the progressive left.

Then maybe we need to regulate kids from rural America migrating to big urban areas to get those jobs and make gang members in those urban cesspools take those jobs. Is that why there is way less violence in rural areas because all the violent rural kids went to the urban cesspools to take those jobs away from violent gang members who grew up in those urban cesspools? Eh?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

A Lanza with 40 rounds of ammunition will probably kill less people than a Lanza with 80 rounds of ammunition. A pissed off postal worker with a 6 round clip will probably kill less people than a pissed off postal worker with a 20 round magazine. I guess possibly saving a couple of extra lives during a rage shooting isn't worth the inconvenience of smaller magazines.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

What is to keep either one from obtaining mutiple 6 round magazines, say 5-6, to carry out their missions? As if 30-40-100 round magazines aren't still going to be available. Wouldn't a more common sense approach be to prevent looney sickos from carrying out their twisted agendas?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

What is to keep either one from obtaining mutiple 6 round magazines, say 5-6, to carry out their missions? As if 30-40-100 round magazines aren't still going to be available. Wouldn't a more common sense approach be to prevent looney sickos from carrying out their twisted agendas?

That is a common sense approach. Once you've taken all avenues possible to save lives then you can sleep at night knowing that's you've done your best. "Some" approaches aren't enough.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

I don't have a problem sleeping at night. Besides living on 100 acres, I have plenty of guns (toys) for self protection AND fun. Fun, like honing my shooting skills with target pratice. Multiple 30 and 25 round magazines prevent me from having to reload so often during a session and thereby maximize my shooting pleasure. Glad I didn't migrate to one of those urban cesspools and become an employed gang member.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

I know you don't have a problem sleeping at night. You obviously don't lose sleep over children being gunned down in the streets or in their school. Why would that bother someone who only cares about themselves and their own personal property? The sickening of society continues........

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Oh, so it is my fault the Lanzas et al pull off their sick shit? Bullshit. Does the feel-good, do-nothing moonbat shit progressives cram down the throats of responsible gun owners make you sleep good at night?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

LMAO... who said anything was your fault. I said you didn't care. Which is what you said when you admitted that you don't lose any sleep over it. As long as you have your toys and your property life is grand and the senseless killing of other's can't be allowed to upset your personal utopia. Just based on your crazy ideas alone , I'm not sure someone such as yourself should have access to lethal weapons. But hey, that's the just uninformed opinion of a moonbat progressive.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote deggs:

I am so sick of co-workers and friends using this argument on why gun control should not be enacted, what is the best way to to come back at them when this line is brought up?

There is no way to come back at them. Criminals cause the same amount of crime regardless of gun possession. Perhaps instead of trying to promote an argument, a helpful discussion on solutions could be had.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

To answer the questions being posed here directly, we have to consider a number of propositions that are not being posed in the attempts here at overly simplistic explanations regarding gun violence and gun restrictions.

I am going to pose some theories here and muddy the waters as much as I can. It would be great to hear some thoughtful discussion regarding them - IE - not what has been going on in this thread so far.

1. Is it possible that the nature of the gun laws actually matter? People focus so much on the "amount" of gun laws and don't ask any questions regarding their structure and, more importantly, their implementation. Just because a law is on the books does not mean a) that it was written in a way that will actually work OR b) that it is actually being implemented well on the ground level by state and city police and other law enforcement agencies. Some follow up questions - does anyone know the exact wording of the Chicago/Illinois gun laws and have any theories about why they may not be effective? Does anyone currently live in the Chicago area and have any ideas about how these laws are or aren't being enforced?

2. Is it possible that state or city level gun laws are ineffective at curbing both availability of weapons and the level of gun violence? One question darlene posed was why are states next to Chicago with more lax laws not having the same problems. Well, darlene is it possible that the states who can sell the weapons are relying on the Chicago market to sell their guns? Just because they have lax gun laws doesn't mean that they have high gun ownership per capita. State by state laws don't do well in dealing with transient purchases and guns traveling across state lines. The fact of the matter is that you are ignoring the fact that Chicago gun laws may not work well because all they have to do is jump on the Skyway and drive into Indiana and back to get a weapon. That says NOTHING about the effectiveness of a Federal gun policy. It shows that state by state solutions are ineffective, particularly when the Fed has to regulate interstate commerce which means they would be responsible for dealing with trafficking across state lines.

3. Is it possible that the "culture of violence" that you all describe has more complex and varied causes beyond whether a gun ban exists? You are asking to make comparisons between two urban areas in different states and chalking it all up to "a sense of community" or "culture" and have no sense or theory about what is constituting those in the first place and what role public policy and social conditions beyond gun laws play. Chicago is one of the largest cities in the US. Unless you are talking about Detroit, DC, NYC, or LA, you comparison is immediately moot because those 5 cities are in a completely different class of their own. Not even Minneapolis, Houston, Denver, Tampa, Miami, etc. are that large nor do they have that level of population density. This illuminates a couple of the factors I am talking about: Overall city size matters. Population density matters. Public school quality and funding matters. Police per capita matters. POVERTY matters. Prevelance or lack of social supports matters. HISTORY OF THE CITY matters. Chicago was the capital of organized crime for several decades and that matters. You can't just compare that to Tupelo, Mississippi and think that you have offered any sort of meaningful analysis or critique of the situation. In otherwords, the parity between the comparison cities MATTERS.

4. The best way to judge the effectiveness of a gun law is to compare gun crime before and after the enactment of law - and I am talking within a reasonable time frame. If you look a decade down the road, then too many other things have happened to adequately assess the law's effects. Does anyone know what gun crime was like in Chicago before and after the gun restrictions were passed?

This is an adult problem that requires adult thinking to comprehend. Let's up the ante a little bit on our consideration of the issues. I have a great idea. Let's have all the Republicans try checking the assumption that laws, and bans in particular, never work (bans on drunk driving, for example, have). Liberals check the idea that simply outlawing particular kinds of weapons is the only solution to this issue.

I have this weird idea that if you focused on social supports, in particular mental health availability, and living wages for all workers (IE actually support minimum wage, unions, and labor laws) you would see mass shootings at least half in less than a decade.

I have this weird idea that while it is nice to collect certain types of fire arms, that Billy-Bob Joe-Jim should not have a tank in his back yard. I have this odd notion that maybe certain types of weapons deemed assault weapons could be made legal if you restrict the availability of their ammo and the right to shoot them to licensed firing ranges.

I have this odd idea that requiring a license - whether it be for driving, hunting, fishing, selling liqour, etc. - has NEVER been considered an affront to individual freedoms and it shouldn't be for gun ownership either.

I have this odd idea that the propensity for conservatives to compare gun ownership and deaths to vehicular deaths should make them consider the fact that all vehicles must and their sales must be registered with the state in which they reside.

Time to place ideology at the door and start having a more intelligent conversation folks. Next time it could be your kid. Are you willing to sacrifice your 6-7 year old so that Mr. Armchair Chuck Norris can have an AR-15 with a bump-fire stock and 300 rounds of ammo in a drum mag and then leave it out on the counter for his psychopath teenage son cto pick up and shoot up your neighborhood school, mall, cinema, supermarket, etc?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Mr. Armchair Chuck is not the one killing the 6-7 year olds nor is his teenage son because he is not a psychopath and Chuck stores his AR-15 properly.

  • Houston was founded on August 30, 1836 by brothers Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen on land near the banks of Buffalo Bayou.
  • Houston is the fourth most populous city in the nation (trailing only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago), and is the largest in the southern U.S. and Texas.
  • The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (Houston CMSA) consists of eight counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller
  • The Houston CMSA covers 8,778 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Massachusetts but larger than New Jersey.
  • Founded in 1836, the City of Houston has a 2010 population of 2.1 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau -- www.census.gov. Houston's population in 1850 was listed as 2,396.
  • The metro area's population of 5.95 million in 2010 is 6th largest among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas, according to www.census.gov, and a 26% increase since 2000.
  • Harris County's population is 4,092,459.
  • Houston has among the youngest populations in the nation. The city has the third-largest Hispanic and third-largest Mexican population in the United States

A nice contrast to Chicago for a natural experiment is Houston. Houston is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic factors such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as the drug trade and human trafficking. Despite all this, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. This is because the people of Houston are well armed, while innocents in Chicago have been condemned to be sitting ducks.
Is it possible that gun laws are ineffective because criminals do not obey those laws and gun crimes as well as other crimes are lower in areas where ordinary law abiding citizens are not restricted in firearms ownership? But statistics that prove this are ignored by the anti-gun agenda crowd.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

Perhaps Larry Elders in his latest commentary sums up the problem with children our so-called "gun culture".

http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder.html

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote deggs:

I am so sick of co-workers and friends using this argument on why gun control should not be enacted, what is the best way to to come back at them when this line is brought up?

@ Deggs, well, when your friends say "Chicago shows gun control doesn't work," what I would ask your friends and co-workers who parrot this simpleton’s argument is the following:

Why don’t we just stop trying to enforce immigration laws and shut down border security with Mexico?It doesn’t work!Look at all the illegal immigrants here despite all those efforts! Let’s just OPEN ALL THE BORDERS!”

"Arizona shows aggressive immigration laws, border security, a menacing Sheriff, and vigilante groups don't work!"

Does Arizona’s aggressive stance against illegal immigration mean there are no illegal immigrants in Arizona?No.Because state lines are porous, and they can come in from other, more immigration friendly states.And those same immigration friendly states, other states, not to mention jobs, attract those immigrants no matter what Arizona legislates, or Tough guy Joe Arpaio menaces.Arizona is right next to California, so I’d bet as many illegal immigrants cross the border into immigrant-unfriendly Arizona from immigration-friendly California, as guns cross from gun-friendly Arizona into gun-unfriendly California.

So, tell them: “Tough immigration laws, a menacing Sheriff, and focused Mexican border security doesn’t work!…..Just like gun regulations don’t work in Chicago!”

Just like immigration laws, gun control laws are only as strong as weakest state law, especially if that state is nearby.Contraband will always find a way.A Welcome to Chicago sign doesn’t do much to deter illegal guns.But that doesn’t mean gun regulations can’t work. That’s why comprehensive uniform national gun laws, as well as immigration laws, are needed.

Why aren’t anti-illegal immigration activists telling Joe Arpaio and his posse, “It ain’t working Joe, they’re coming anyway, just open the borders, and go back to catching flashers and purse snatchers?”Instead they applaud him and urge more.Just like gun-control activists applaud the efforts in Chicago to keep guns out, despite those difficulties.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote ah2:

To answer the questions being posed here directly, we have to consider a number of propositions that are not being posed in the attempts here at overly simplistic explanations regarding gun violence and gun restrictions.

I am going to pose some theories here and muddy the waters as much as I can. It would be great to hear some thoughtful discussion regarding them - IE - not what has been going on in this thread so far.

1. Is it possible that the nature of the gun laws actually matter? People focus so much on the "amount" of gun laws and don't ask any questions regarding their structure and, more importantly, their implementation. Just because a law is on the books does not mean a) that it was written in a way that will actually work OR b) that it is actually being implemented well on the ground level by state and city police and other law enforcement agencies. Some follow up questions - does anyone know the exact wording of the Chicago/Illinois gun laws and have any theories about why they may not be effective? Does anyone currently live in the Chicago area and have any ideas about how these laws are or aren't being enforced?

The effort is appreciated ah2. It is about time for some reasonable discussion. I believe you hit the nail on the head here. There are way too many people that succumb to the knee jerk response that what is needed is more gun laws instead of taking the time to look at what is in the existing laws, and what they have accomplished. Of course, a problem I see with getting past this step is that we can't get some folks to swallow the facts if we used a greased funnel.

Quote ah2:2. Is it possible that state or city level gun laws are ineffective at curbing both availability of weapons and the level of gun violence? One question darlene posed was why are states next to Chicago with more lax laws not having the same problems. Well, darlene is it possible that the states who can sell the weapons are relying on the Chicago market to sell their guns? Just because they have lax gun laws doesn't mean that they have high gun ownership per capita. State by state laws don't do well in dealing with transient purchases and guns traveling across state lines. The fact of the matter is that you are ignoring the fact that Chicago gun laws may not work well because all they have to do is jump on the Skyway and drive into Indiana and back to get a weapon. That says NOTHING about the effectiveness of a Federal gun policy. It shows that state by state solutions are ineffective, particularly when the Fed has to regulate interstate commerce which means they would be responsible for dealing with trafficking across state lines.

We need to dispatch the false premise that guns equal crime, and accept the premise that criminals equal crime. The places with high amounts of crime have high amounts of criminals regardless of the number of guns. For instance lets study your example. It is much easier to get a gun in Indiana than in Illinois; a point supported by there being almost twice as many guns in Indiana. Yet, Illinois has about twice the crime rate as Indiana. If we apply the hypothesis that crime is where the guns are, we come up with a provably false premise. Furthermore, if we apply the premise that Illinois crime was made possible by the guns from Indiana, it would show that Indiana crime would follow the same guns, but it doesn't.

Quote ah2:3. Is it possible that the "culture of violence" that you all describe has more complex and varied causes beyond whether a gun ban exists? You are asking to make comparisons between two urban areas in different states and chalking it all up to "a sense of community" or "culture" and have no sense or theory about what is constituting those in the first place and what role public policy and social conditions beyond gun laws play. Chicago is one of the largest cities in the US. Unless you are talking about Detroit, DC, NYC, or LA, you comparison is immediately moot because those 5 cities are in a completely different class of their own. Not even Minneapolis, Houston, Denver, Tampa, Miami, etc. are that large nor do they have that level of population density. This illuminates a couple of the factors I am talking about: Overall city size matters. Population density matters. Public school quality and funding matters. Police per capita matters. POVERTY matters. Prevelance or lack of social supports matters. HISTORY OF THE CITY matters. Chicago was the capital of organized crime for several decades and that matters. You can't just compare that to Tupelo, Mississippi and think that you have offered any sort of meaningful analysis or critique of the situation. In other words, the parity between the comparison cities MATTERS.

Now we are getting to the meat of the matter. First, I ask that a little more discretion be applied to how cities compare to each other. For instance, DC is not a very large city, and those cities with the highest amount social support (school funding, police, social services, etc) also tend to have the highest crime rates. Also, cities don't have the level of poverty that can be compared to rural places like Appalachia and the Tennessee Valley, so it is hard to consider poverty has a prevailing factor. I think it would be safe to say that there are a multitude of factors that all add up to something called culture, which is indeed where we need to look.

Quote ah2:4. The best way to judge the effectiveness of a gun law is to compare gun crime before and after the enactment of law - and I am talking within a reasonable time frame. If you look a decade down the road, then too many other things have happened to adequately assess the law's effects. Does anyone know what gun crime was like in Chicago before and after the gun restrictions were passed?

Bingo again! For instance we can examine how fruitless the last assault gun and large magazine ban was before we decide it should be done again. Once again, we should dispatch the false premise tha guns equal crime, and look at the crime rates. The earliest number I could find shows Illinois violent crimes at 36,802 in 1960. When the gun ban was implemented in 1982, the violent crimes had increased to high of 91,753. by the time the gun ban was dissolved by a SCOTUS ruling the violent crime rate had increased to a high of 119,955. Now, with the gun ban lifted and guns once again allowed in Illinois, the violent crimes are at 55,247. Weird huh? With more guns, the violent crime still rate dropped, by almost half even. Of course, there are a lot of factors that caused the reduction in crime so it cannot be directly associated with guns. But that only further promotes the falseness in the premise that guns equal crime.

Quote ah2:This is an adult problem that requires adult thinking to comprehend. Let's up the ante a little bit on our consideration of the issues. I have a great idea. Let's have all the Republicans try checking the assumption that laws, and bans in particular, never work (bans on drunk driving, for example, have). Liberals check the idea that simply outlawing particular kinds of weapons is the only solution to this issue.

Agreed!

Quote ah2:I have this weird idea that if you focused on social supports, in particular mental health availability, and living wages for all workers (IE actually support minimum wage, unions, and labor laws) you would see mass shootings at least half in less than a decade.

Not agreed. The mass shooting tend to occur in affluent areas where social status is way above average. Perhaps you could reevaluate the correlation.

Quote ah2:I have this weird idea that while it is nice to collect certain types of fire arms, that Billy-Bob Joe-Jim should not have a tank in his back yard. I have this odd notion that maybe certain types of weapons deemed assault weapons could be made legal if you restrict the availability of their ammo and the right to shoot them to licensed firing ranges.

I am willing to meet halfway. I agree that operational tanks do not belong in Billy's back yard, but if Billy wants to assault vermin on his rural farm, that is his business. City rules should not be applied to everyone. While we are at it, perhaps you could share your definition of what exactly an assault weapon is?

Quote ah2:I have this odd idea that requiring a license - whether it be for driving, hunting, fishing, selling liqour, etc. - has NEVER been considered an affront to individual freedoms and it shouldn't be for gun ownership either.

I do agree with this, but... I find it odd that you do not apply the same logic to voting. If I remember right, you were one of the top warriors in proclaiming that the poor and elderly shouldn't be forced to have photo ID because of cost and inconvenience. Why would you deny those same poor and elderly this Constitutional right?

Quote ah2:I have this odd idea that the propensity for conservatives to compare gun ownership and deaths to vehicular deaths should make them consider the fact that all vehicles must and their sales must be registered with the state in which they reside.

Agreed, but only if liberals consider that it is the car driver that is punished and not the car or other car drivers.

Quote ah2:Time to place ideology at the door and start having a more intelligent conversation folks. Next time it could be your kid. Are you willing to sacrifice your 6-7 year old so that Mr. Armchair Chuck Norris can have an AR-15 with a bump-fire stock and 300 rounds of ammo in a drum mag and then leave it out on the counter for his psychopath teenage son cto pick up and shoot up your neighborhood school, mall, cinema, supermarket, etc?

You almost made it... too bad. Would intelligent conversation involve asking if your 6-7 year old should be allowed to be sacrificed so some Mr. Armchair Chuck Norris won't be harmed by returning gun fire? Aren't these the type of questions that make a conversation unintelligent?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Mr. Armchair Chuck is not the one killing the 6-7 year olds nor is his teenage son because he is not a psychopath and Chuck stores his AR-15 properly.

  • Houston was founded on August 30, 1836 by brothers Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen on land near the banks of Buffalo Bayou.
  • Houston is the fourth most populous city in the nation (trailing only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago), and is the largest in the southern U.S. and Texas.
  • The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (Houston CMSA) consists of eight counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller
  • The Houston CMSA covers 8,778 square miles, an area slightly smaller than Massachusetts but larger than New Jersey.
  • Founded in 1836, the City of Houston has a 2010 population of 2.1 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau -- www.census.gov. Houston's population in 1850 was listed as 2,396.
  • The metro area's population of 5.95 million in 2010 is 6th largest among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas, according to www.census.gov, and a 26% increase since 2000.
  • Harris County's population is 4,092,459.
  • Houston has among the youngest populations in the nation. The city has the third-largest Hispanic and third-largest Mexican population in the United States

A nice contrast to Chicago for a natural experiment is Houston. Houston is very similar to Chicago in terms of socioeconomic factors such as population, density, and segregation. Houston, like Chicago, is a major center for illegal activities such as the drug trade and human trafficking. Despite all this, Houston has a murder rate two-thirds that of Chicago. This is because the people of Houston are well armed, while innocents in Chicago have been condemned to be sitting ducks.
Is it possible that gun laws are ineffective because criminals do not obey those laws and gun crimes as well as other crimes are lower in areas where ordinary law abiding citizens are not restricted in firearms ownership? But statistics that prove this are ignored by the anti-gun agenda crowd.

The population density of Chicago and Houston are completely different. Chicago has almost 500,000 more people on less than half the land.

I don't have the energy to combat the rest of this tonight but I will start by asking that if someone has a good source for looking at per capita gun deaths by city, please post it.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

And Phoenix, AZ has some of the easiest and carefree gun laws, and we are also the national capital for kidnappings, and human smuggling. Crystal meth use is rampant for local teens. Our local sheriff is a conservative blowhard, sexual assaults and rapes routinely are not prosecuted, and a two week jail sentence can be a death sentence. Somehow the abundance of guns hasn't fixed AZ.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

Bullshit! All that smuggling has nothing to do with illegal immigration, right? All that drug use is because of AZ's easy and carefree gun laws, right? Does your conservative blowhard sheriff commit crimes with his gun? Are those sexual assaults, rapes and death sentences in jail committed with guns?

That is what is called an attributional bias by P76. He is rationalizing that certain crimes take place in AZ because HE thinks AZ has lax gun laws whether those crimes are gun related or not. Ilogically reasoning for instance that because of lax gun laws there are assualts, rapes and death in AZ JAILS. Bullshit! that is, unless they are being committed by guards with guns. Then they might need screen people for guard positions better. But still has nothing to to with lax AZ gun laws.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

In 2010, 67.5% of homicides in the US were caused by firearms. Even before you add in the number of deaths caused by accidental discharge (which are not classified as homicide), and you can see there is a giant problem with guns in our country. Compare that to England, with virtually zero gun ownership; while the chart doesn't report their data for 2010, in 2009 their % was 6.6. That's a pretty big difference for gun control to "not work". I'm not a proponent for total disarmament, but those numbers are hard to ignore.

To look at “murder rates,” we have to take more into account than simply raw numbers reported for any particular city; before we assume that any one factor (ie, gun laws) are directly linked to a murder rate in a city, we must also examine population, density, and any mitigating circumstances that may exist. Let’s examine Chicago, with what is described as some of the strictest gun laws in the country, compared to Houston, since that city is already being discussed here, and is in a state with some of the most lax—or even non-existent—gun laws.

FBI data on crimes known to law enforcement, 2010:

Chicago:

Population: 2,833,649

Murder and Non-negligent manslaughter: 432

% of population murdered: 1.52

Estimated number of gang members per 1,000 people: greater than 6 (6.5 per 1,000, makes18,418 gang members)

Houston:

Population: 2,280,859

Murder and Non-negligent homicide: 269

% of Population murdered: 1.18%

Number of gang members per 1.000: less than 4 (3.5 per 1,000 makes 7,983 gang members)

So with about 55% of Chicago’s gang population per capita, Houston has saved itself a whopping 0.34% on its murder rate. If we were to nearly double the number of gang members in Houston, how many more murders can we safely say would be likely to occur? Another 56 murders in the city of Houston would put its murder percentage slightly greater than Chicago’s.

Pretending that Chicago's only problem is murder is absurd. The problem is not that "only criminals have guns," which, by the way, simply isn't true; the problem is not that it is difficult to purchase a gun; the problem is that Chicago has long had a culture of gang violence, poverty, and drug abuse; these things lead to a high crime rate in general.

Strict gun laws cannot prevent every kind of gun murder; just because we suspend people's driver's licenses doesn't mean they won't still drive, but does that mean we should not suspend the license of someone who has been caught driving drunk? Or stop having DUI checkpoints, because "we all shouldn't have to pay for what one person did"? But to hold up Chicago as an example of why reasonable gun laws supposedly won't work is short-sighted, and doesn't take into account the other factors at work. Looking at just one other factor provides some interesting food-for-thought.

Sources:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Hom...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-8/10tbl08il.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-8/table-8-texas

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#Gangd

TandEsMommy's picture
TandEsMommy
Joined:
Jan. 30, 2013 2:50 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Bullshit! All that smuggling has nothing to do with illegal immigration, right? All that drug use is because of AZ's easy and carefree gun laws, right? Does your conservative blowhard sheriff commit crimes with his gun? Are those sexual assaults, rapes and death sentences in jail committed with guns?

That is what is called an attributional bias by P76. He is rationalizing that certain crimes take place in AZ because HE thinks AZ has lax gun laws whether those crimes are gun related or not. Ilogically reasoning for instance that because of lax gun laws there are assualts, rapes and death in AZ JAILS. Bullshit! that is, unless they are being committed by guards with guns. Then they might need screen people for guard positions better. But still has nothing to to with lax AZ gun laws.

No, but all the guns are not stopping the crimes. We have some of the worst levels of crimes in the nation, and the easiest access to guns. Guns are not stopping crimes.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

And banning guns will stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally and committing crimes with guns as it has so well in Chickago? Dream on, wolf.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

2/15/13 -

More on this subject on the day of the presidents latest visit to Chicago:

No, Chicago Isn’t Proof That Gun Regulation Doesn’t Work

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

None of which addresses the fact if you are in possession of a firearm in the city of Chicago without a nearly to impossible obtain, permit to carry, you are subject to arrest and jailtime. Complain to the judges that keep letting them go. Remember, it's for the children.

Pass useless laws, feel good.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Here we have an interesting exchange instead of hyperbolic insanity from darlin' and less than scientific fact being proclaimed and projected. Paleo, I am afraid that you missed the point of ah2's Chuck Norris reference and that what makes the bulk of this thread less than intelligent conversation is refusal to respect the outrage and disgust. On the Right, other than really racist 'solutions,' what we get is that there is nothing we can do about it or that more guns will be the best response. What we don't get is responsive and effective help solving this peculiarly American gun violence thing.

Working backwards, you miss totally on the punishing the driver, which we do, as we also punish the shooter. But, we also have standards for street operation that do not include tanks. If we are required to drive cars that meet these standards, are the cars and other drivers being punished? Of course not. Try again.

We do not give guns away. We do have to register to vote, we just don't have to pay to do it. Not a good analogy.

Let us determine a fairly strict standard for "assault" weapons so the line is easy to see and understand. The three shot hunting standard works for me. By all means, have this discussion.

The argument against serious social services upgrades and investments in human beings early on fail. Concentrated urban decay is hard to compare with rural, dispersed poverty. We need these investments for many reasons beyond the concern of this thread.

Is the answer to "ineffective gun control" no gun control or "effective gun control?" Let's face it, we may have to try some things we have not yet thought up and discover some things none of us could expect. Gun safety ought to be one goal. If you think of control as the alternative to confiscation, and if you want to be able to own guns, I think you ought to be invested in "control" to protect that "right."

There are issues of our culture of death and violence here. We know that guns are tools used by human beings, but they are also symbols of macho and protection that are not justified. Culture of violence issues and kinds of images and beliefs about force play into gun ownership. The separation of gun and gun owner is not as easy as you would prefer.

When we try to examine what would and could work legally, we keep running into radical 2nd ideologues whose interpretation of the text seems strange but strongly held. If criminals can get a hold of war weapons because we are awash in them, do we just let them have them? Why do we have to tolerate them just because "collectors" don't want them disarmed? There is no evidence that guns make us safer and much to suggest the opposite. The idea of the gun is more powerful than the tool itself.

Still, I hope I honored the intelligence of the discourse here.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote Redwing:

Pass useless laws, feel good.

Yeah, and watch that crazy paranoid S.O.B. Wayne LaPierre and the NRA do everything they can to block the enforcement of existing laws, as well as blocking the adoption of new gun laws.

Not my opinion, just the facts ...

NRA actively worked to weaken gun law enforcement

Meet The Shady Secret Money Group Helping The NRA Buy Up Judges And Attorneys General

***

lots more where those came from ... i'll save them for later when i have more time.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Anti-gun nut moonbats are good at condemning those that advocate things they are against like the NRA, but it is OK for them to advocate for their cause/s because only their causes are right. If you don't think they are right just ask any moonbat.

Condemn in your enemies what you condone in your allies. Moonbat logic thinks gun advocates should not be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to advocate for gun rights because it is against what moonbats advocate and they have determined their anti-gun nut cause as the only just cause.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

The left does not want opposing messages to be allowed to be heard for fear of exposing the lefts fallacies and lies.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

OMG. We let you spout your ass off here and if we disagree with your opinions it is because they lack substance apart from the role they play in your mind. We are hardly afraid of different ideas and perspectives here. I find you posts sad almost all the time. There is a genuine rage with some real basis, but the projection and displacement ruins any moral compass operating to channel those emotions into productivity. I keep telling you, we have some very good Obama critics who pull no punches whatsoever here in good standing with whom many of us have minor disagreements or interpretations of what is needed for change.

Explaining why Obama's record is what it is, for better and worse, is important to understanding the pathology we deal with. Making him the problem is not how to understand the problems or what needs to be done. This has nothing to do with "excusing him" or refusing to listen to uncomfortable, unfriendly ideas. As far as I can tell, you have no interest in having anyone listen to you unless you think that insults and shouting it louder is communication.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Anti-gun nut moonbats are good at condemning those that advocate things they are against like the NRA, but it is OK for them to advocate for their cause/s because only their causes are right. If you don't think they are right just ask any moonbat.

Condemn in your enemies what you condone in your allies. Moonbat logic thinks gun advocates should not be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights to advocate for gun rights because it is against what moonbats advocate and they have determined their anti-gun nut cause as the only just cause.

As someone else on this site put it, what an "intellectural doorknob" ..... when is constantly calling people names an argument?

northlander
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2013 2:23 pm

2/13/13 -

Chicago gun ordinance approved by City Council

2/15/13 -

Chicago's record murder rate: Don't blame guns alone

"If the main topic with the president is only going to be gun control, we are pushing ourselves backwards," said 20-year-old community organizer Veronica Morris-Moore. "It's hard to control guns here.

"What we need to do is address the root of the problem, the economic violence on a lot of these kids who don't have jobs or an education or even something to eat, and when they are victims of violence, they don't have access to the medical care they need. We need a trauma center here."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/health/trauma-centers-guns/index.html

***

Obama Chicago Gun Violence Talk: President Talks Shootings At Hyde Park Academy

Gun control proponents say Chicago illustrates the need for tougher restrictions nationally because guns are coming from outside the city. Statistics show that more than half of the guns seized by Chicago police in the last 12 years came from other states. A University of Chicago study found that more than 1,300 guns confiscated by police since 2008 were purchased at a single store just outside city limits. More than 270 were used in crimes.

Obama Chicago Gun Violence Talk: President Talks Shootings At Hyde Park Academy (VIDEO)

2/16/13 -

Bloomberg takes gun fight to Chicago

A Chicagoland special House election to replace disgraced former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has suddenly become Ground Zero of the national gun control debate, courtesy of anti-gun crusader Mike Bloomberg.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/michael-bloomberg-takes-gun-fight-to-jackson-jr-house-race-87730.html

2/17/13 -

Chicago teen killed same day sister attended Obama gun speech

2/18/13 -

Two More Teens Shot DURING Obama’s Chicago Gun Violence Speech (Video)

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am

Just because you spout off in all your wordy pontificating does not make it the gospel. It must strike a chord of truth with or you should not be so sensitive and take things so seriously. You just proved my point there, pope. Who's really calling the shots? If it is obamy, then I will critize what I do not like about the direction he wants to take this country. If you say it is not him, then my point is proven that he is just another corporate puppet like bushie, and does not call the shots. Which is it O wise pontificating one? By all means, disagee to your heart's content, or is it contempt?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

I love how the guns seller NRA loves the larger cultural explanation to divert us from the lethality of the tools of the trade as well as their own role in selling guns as the answer to fears. Sure, the New Rome is founded on our Holy Violence as the means for Peace. It would be strange if that dominator pathology were not part of our domestic culture and life because the Empire did not spring out of democracy at work. There is a lot of pathology driven down into poverty and despair, but also for those who try to make it in the system and find their souls being sucked out by success.

But, when it comes to urban gang violence, why have we learned nothing from the best of hip hop as well as from that which presents the pathology without moral scrutiny. When we look at the stories we tell ourselves in our media, both as "news" and as entertainment, where do we see people those we fear could ever have indentified themselves with who are positive characters? White kids in suburbs grow up looking at social and cultural "success" images and fit right into the movies and tv shows, even if both get dumbed down a lot. If you are not of that image, what character do you get to be?

This is why it matters that we invest early in human beings who will be our fellow citizens and neighbors. If we do not have a culture of Basic Trust where we recognize some fundamental in the same boatness, we will not appreciate why we need to resolve our conflicts peacefully and satisfactorily. If we do not show that we care about all who are included in that "liberty and justice" thing, we give them no reason to see us as human beings either. Because we have power over them, they have to be nimble as well as knowing. They do not have the luxury of public racism and acting out, as has the White Tea Party. Or the militia nuts, or the Nuge.

Civil Rights achieve real opportunity for a significant part of the Black Community, but not for the really poor. King was killed doing the Economic Justice part, and it sort of died with him as a movement goal. Jesse has tried to a significant degree, but he could not bring the moral power of King or keep his house in order either. But remember, they killed King and made it hard on any Black Leader who showed any similar potential for broad appeal. God may call up a Prophet, but not on our timeline. Check out the Psalms on "how long O Lord."

This is how history is made and why we find it hard to be "in time" with grace and harmony. As we surf the incoming future called the present, dealing with the last wave and trying to be ready for the next, we have to have confidence to a point of certainty to do the best we can, but it also covers up the clear existential knowledge that the Big One is Coming! The only thing fear can do is wake you up an put you on the alert to do what you have practiced without thinking per se. Life is filled with these high adreneliine moments of anxiety/thrill/wipeout and dealing with them is our challenge.

The appeal of ideology is certainty. All facts can be denied if they do not fit "reality," so ideologues find ingenious way to explain away what simply cannot be true even if every piece of evidence says it is. When you throw in the existential surfing perspective of active interaction as the mode of our being, the problem of "believing" comes into focus. What we need is trust, the confidence of what we have practiced to meet the unexpected when it shows up, and the security of those who will come to our aid if we wipeout. Our political theories and "beliefs" need to be open and flexible enough to allow for what we have missed or could not have foreseen. We are not here to prove who has been correct all along but to live informed by their experience and wisdom as we grab our own boards and hit the surf. We have a living legacy if we do our own surfing, just a museum if we don't.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system