You might be right.
You are right-there is no way to get a law that extreme passed. How much do you think it could be increased to? 20 to 90 days does seem like a slap on the wrist to me.
Is there a separate law for possessing a weapon that has been altered in any way to make unidentifiable, registration-wise?
What percentage of these cases get knocked down or even kicked because of jail overcrowding?
Absent any other crime, I don’t know that any increase is possible. That is to say that simple possession of a handgun is the only law the perpetrator has broken. Some comparison might help. What is the typical sentence for assault in Chicago? For child abuse? Those are crimes where a third party was actually injured. What about possession of heroin, especially in amounts small enough to preclude charges of distribution?
For comparison, at the Federal level, possession of an unlicensed machine gun is supposed to net the offender up to 10 years in prison and many thousands of dollars in fines. That, apparently, passes Constitutional muster. OTOH, the few cases I ever heard of it being used to really hammer anybody were cases of people illegally manufacturing such weapons for black market sale or because they were involved in additional criminal activity and it was an add-on charge.
The law will not deter individual criminals, or gangs, or insane spree killers, any more than a law against driving without a license deters car thieves, given that the penalty for handgun possession is small and access to handguns is easy.
The law will not deter the legal owner of a handgun from killing his spouse in a moment of uncontrolled rage during a domestic dispute, for it does not outright prohibit handgun ownership.
What the law does do is draw attention to the tragically high rate of gun deaths in Chicago, and by extension the USA. If more and more communities enact such laws, then perhaps the issue will be addressed nationally in a significant and rational manner. If this comes to pass, then the Chicago law will have had a positive effect. It takes a great many local changes to effect a sea change across the nation.
It is very difficult to fix the socio-economic problems that result in individual crime, gang crime, and domestic violence, and it is very difficult to fix the national problem of the country being “awash in guns,” as ed anger so aptly put it, such that local restrictions are very easily sidestepped.
It is easy to pass a law that has little effect but strong symbolism. The law does not address the underlying socio-economic problems or the national problem that bleeds over locally, but it does at least serve as a symbol that gun deaths are not acceptable.
this is simple–
most guns used in gun-crime were not purchased through above-board channels. nearly always, they were bought outside any regulatory means. so, as stated, unless you are law-abiding and intend to use the the weapon for legal activity, there’s little motivation to buy through regulation.
and it’s not just a matter of driving over to another state where things are more lax. it’s more like you buy from a guy you know who has available guns. this can be your uncle who is all “hey you can have this for a hundred bucks” to a local gun runner to any other means of grey areas.
regulations have little effect on gun violence. this datasetmight be obsolete, but there are cogent corollaries in the concepts, esp method of procurement for crime-use firearms.
getting a gun has never required more than cash-and-carry.
here’s an article explaining how most chicago crime guns were bought in cook county by straw-buyers (non-criminal record first-hand buyers who in turn sell second-hand). regulations: ceremonious but little else.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
Now there is a specific problem that needs a solution. Is there one that might not tick off the NRA and other lobbyists?
I don’t have a number, but I do work in the areas where the majority of the shooting occur. Englewood, Auburn, Avondale, Roseland… (gah, I hate Roseland. That neighborhood scares the bleep out of me. The others hide their nature better during daylight hours, but Roseland practically screams post-apocalypse wasteland.) I often work with the family members and neighbors of people killed and, sometimes, the people pulling the trigger.
The people I work with who know the shooters tell me that this is a gang issue. The shooters are overwhelmingly gang members shooting at each other and sometimes missing and killing little girls sitting on their front steps. It goes without saying that these gang members don’t give a second thought to the gun laws. Barely even slows them down in acquiring them through illegal channels.
I don’t see any way to fix it until we fix the neighborhoods. But it’s a huge Catch-22. Gangs pay young men - sometimes to shoot people. The gangs won’t go away until these young men can get decent jobs outside of a gang. We can’t get them jobs until more employers build in their neighborhoods. We can’t get good employers to build in their neighborhoods until they have a customer base there. We can’t get customers in until the gang members stop shooting people in those neighborhoods. So nothing changes…
Maybe factories are the answer. If we brought factories back, they could provide local jobs that don’t need customers in the same area. But we’d have to pay people more than they make in China. Or with a gang.
The US murder rate has been decreasing for over 20 years now,
with the big cities leading the way-- that is old news. See links:
Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993-98
Murder Arrest in the United States, 1990-2010
New York City Homicides 2003-20112
NYC Number of murders:
2011: 209
2010: 329
2009: 386
2008: 518
2007: 478
2006: 562
2005: 534
2004: 548
2003: 597
I wonder if anyone can suggest why NYC rates dropped off a cliff 2009&ff:
2011/2008 = 40%
2011/2003 = 35%
Apparently NYC has less than half the murder rate Chicago does. NYC also
has tough gun possession laws.
No, but there is a solution, one that gun owners ought to concede: the so-called “gun show loophole”. It really is a simple thing indeed to get a background check by using a FFL holder as an intermediary in a face-to-face sale.
i dont know that restrictive gun-laws are the answer.
texas has really loose gun law (i went to a fleamarket where i could have cash-and-carried a fucking AK47) but they do not have as high percentage of gun-related murders as Illinois.
(64 vs 80% gun-murders).
i think it’s a complicated mixture of pop density, socioeconomic factors, gang prevalence, and stuff far over my head.
i really don’t know what the answer is. i know if you outlaw guns totally, all it would mean is the bad guys would have more guns by percentage to good guys w guns. but my brother is a CSI/officer, and conceal and carry citizens, when robbed, have an increased likelihood of being shot (which makes sense–someone pulls a gun to rob you, they see you going for YOUR gun, they panic and shoot). so “good guys” with guns seem to inflate personal danger in gun-related ordeals. see what i mean? far over my head. complex stuff…
guns are terrible all the way around. that chart above says it all; they just make it too easy to kill people.
Not to imply this is the sole reason, but all crimes are going to tend to go down as the baby boom bulge works its way through the python. Crime tends to peak at ages in the 20s, so as that demographic becomes a smaller percentage of the population, crime will tend to decrease even if everything else stays the same.
I’d like to keep us focused on Chicago, please?
What’s the situation with the gun show loophole in the Chicago area-does it exist there?
But they have a higher rate of deaths from guns per-capita: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
So if we send the young’ns elsewhere to live with relatives from ages 15 to maybe 22, the gun death rate in Chicago drops dramatically? I bet theatre goers would also like that solution. 