How about that gun ban Chicago?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Oct 25, 2008.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008

  2. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    Isn't Chicago murder capital about half the time anyhow?
  3. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    Crime has always been a major problem in Chicago, so it doesn't surprise me. Chicago may have more murders than any other city, but the article doesn't say it has the highest rate per capita.
  4. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    Detroit is rated the most dangerous city in the United States according to crime though...

    Chicago is a big city and LA and NY have similar gun laws and are both big cities.

    So basically big cities have a higher chance for murder...

    I fail to see your point.
  5. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I'm not talking about crime in general. I'm talking about MURDER. DC had the highest murder rate, but now its Chicago. I think its rather odd the murder rate shifted from DC (where guns were allowed back in the home) to the next most anti-gun city, Chicago. Guns have been banned in Chicago for two decades or more now. It makes since that it its the new murder capital.

    Although Chicago had only 9 more murders than NY so far,that's not the whole story. NY has around 2.5 times the population. So the murder rate or murders per 100,000 in Chicago is around 2.5 TIMES HIGHER than NY.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  6. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    The article says that murder rates have been plunging in Chicago for the last ten years. How do you explain the fact that the current numbers are about half of what they were before the (handgun only) ban took effect?

    More importantly, you seem to be implying that proliferate handgun ownership equates to lower murder rates, a notion that careful studies don't bear out. With so many factors involved in the statistical flux of violent crime, how, exactly, do these rough numbers you cite as evidence back your unspoken assertion up? In other words, do you have any data at all on what percentage of Chicago murders could have been prevented by the victims having handguns in their possession, or are you just shooting in the dark?
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2008
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    How the hell would you report a crime that doesn't happen?
  8. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    Haha, no... I mean of the murders that occurred. To give you an idea, here's a list of the 125 fatal shootings over the summer in Chicago; look at it and tell me how many you think would have been thwarted without the ban vs. how many more might have happened if more handguns were around (since most shootings are gang-related and only a tiny fraction are of the home invasion variety, not to mention that a sane and responsible gun owner doesn't keep handguns under his or her pillow at night, and not to mention that there are more accidental shootings per 1,000 handguns owned than there are successful home defenses).
  9. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    I thought that was either Baltimore or Detroit.
  10. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    Blimey, I forgot to post the link I promised in post #8:

    Chicago summer shootings - Google Maps

    And could somebody tell me once and for all, if more guns means less violent crime, why is it that the US has a half-dozen times the population of the UK, yet consistently records an annual gun death rate hundreds of times greater? Please, I'd really like an answer. And don't tell me that "Brits simply find other means." Overall per capita murder and suicide rates are higher here as well, whereas per capita robbery figures in the two areas are virtually identical.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008

Share This Page