Interesting. Are you saying that Chicago’s gun laws are aimed more at punishment after the fact than prevention?
Balderdash. It works just as well as the no-smoking sections on planes used to. Smoky in rows 25-45, rows 1-24 were fresh as a daisy.
Perhaps that was not the aim, but it seems to have been the effect. The laws are based on the honor system and I can imagine that many (most?) law-abiding citizens look at the expense and effort, weigh the likelihood of getting caught, and say, “Fuck that noise.”
ETA: I know I would.
I was going by the link provided by Dallas Jones, which I reposted in the OP. I think his implication was that gun laws don’t work in Chicago because they do nothing to curb the gun death rate there. Now the stats from the link you’ve provided seem to show a different picture. Could at least some of the gun laws in that city be a factor in that trend, or do you think it’s something else?
The University of Chicago Crime Lab has a lot of information, some with reference to guns. Possible solutions include disrupting the underground gun market or increasing the city’s focus on concealed carry, which is involved with most homicides (it’s already illegal).
As for a gun control timeline: Chicago enacted a handgun ban in the early 80s, which was recently repealed by the Supreme Court in 2010. More recently there’s been talk of tougher restrictions on violent offenders (lifetime bans for felonies and 5-year bans for violent misdemeanors). Not sure how that history matches up with the death tally, if at all.
When did the latest laws go into effect? I don’t know and I’d rather go to bed than to look it up, but I seem to recall it happened well before the big drop in 2003. And what else happened in 2003 to reduce gun violence?
What is the penalty in Chicago for getting caught with an unregistered weapon if it hasn’t been involved in a crime?
That is the answer, and there is nothing vague about it.
Yes to both. Is this a serious question?
Just asking. I could just go ahead and assume the answer, but I’m trying to get facts together here.
Is Chicago THE most violent city in the US, on a per 100,000 person scale, or a population density scale?
Are the non-gun related violent crimes in the highest city range also, or is it just killing with guns that Chicago leads the way in?
If you look at the top 10 most violent cities in the US, are there no clear similarities in the make-up of these places?
I wish that people who push for city level gun control laws would concede IN ADVANCE that it is impossible for their laws to be effective.
How about life in prison, first offence, for anyone caught in possession of an unauthorised weapon? You don’t even have to be seen firing it.
If you own a gun that you didn’t register and that you haven’t passed a basic safety test to qualify your ownership, your life is as good as over for at least 10 years.
Anyone think that might change people’s casual attitude about leading a criminal lifestyle and carrying a gun? Or those who think they aren’t criminals and just do a bit of gun bartering because it’s the American Way?
What are the current sentencing guidelines in Chicago?
So, a maximum of 90 days in the chokey. I think they’d pay more attention to my sentence of life with the possibility of parole after 10 years.
Chicago gun laws are more or less useless because all you have to do is cross the city limit line to find a gun shop that will happily sell you guns and ammo. Since there are no checkpoints where you re-enter the city there is no actual bar to bringing guns into the city.
Aside from that, the murder rate is driven by two things: gangs and their warfare, and random crime involving weaponry. I don’t know the respective percentages, but gang-related is significant. I’d think that if you reduced/eliminated the gang warfare you’d see a real drop in the rate of murder from guns. How do you do that? Don’t know (aside from maintaining a 1:1 cop-to-resident ratio or something equally draconian and unlikely).
“Each day that such violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.”
It’s a statement as much as anything else.
Except that this is a thread where factual answers and realistic solutions are being sought. Extreme answers designed to provoke a reaction still belong in the pit thread from which this one split off.
Not questions I wish to deal with in this thread, nor did I say(or even imply) these things.