I’m a little confused as to your position here. Obviously it reduces the effect of Chicago’s specific laws are if you can purchase a gun ten miles away and freely return to the city.
Is this a Socratic thing I should be getting?
“If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns”. Well, good. That’d make it really easy to identify the outlaws, wouldn’t it?
And to those who say that the UK and Australia don’t count as successes of gun control, why not?
You’re not going to be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions about Chicago
unless you compare Chicago with the rest of the country, and OP does not make you thread fuhrer.
That’s why I was politely asking, not ordering. I’m hoping this doesn’t turn into yet another generic “They’re out to get our guns!” vs. “They’re just a bunch of gun nuts!” debacle.
Once again-I’m not hinting an an answer. I’m asking for answers from all sides. No secret agenda here.
edited to add: I asked about gunshows in Chicago because I don’t know what the situation is there concerning them.
I will repeat:
Violent crime has been on the rise in America. The current report from October 2012 states a 17% increase.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4494
I realize Chicago is what this thread is about and I understand Chicago is presently our nation’s leader in murder. I’m just tired of people using old statistics about how violence is decreasing.
Nothing I said is a step in that direction, and OP questions cannot be answered within OP stipulations.
But this thread is about gun deaths in Chicago. Aren’t there other threads addressing the bigger picture?
Yes, there are Czarcasm.
I’m correcting colonial’s assertion in this thread that violent crime is down. No derail intended.
So the answers so far to the specific of the op:
-
The “increase” such as it is in Chicago is at the level of 1 year of statistical noise against a backdrop of overall long term decrease and does not represent any meaningful increase. Rates dropped from 943 20 years ago to a record low of 433 last year.
-
Gun control laws are always just one of a multiplicity of factors that contribute to the incidence of violent deaths. The overall longer term decrease may or may not have anything to do with gun control laws. Other demographic, economic, and policing factors are very likely much more potent contributors in either direction.
-
Local gun control can have little impact on illegal gun availability in the context of a porous border with nearby communities that do not have such laws. They are a bit more meaningful than a village declaring itself a nuclear free zone but not by much.
-
Comparisons to other cities and attempting by way of such comparisons to understand which factors seem to play what roles, including demographics, economics, policing methods, gun regulation, and so on, is the only meaningful way to answer the question in any sort of complete way. Such however is unlikely to be too enlightening given the number of confounding factors.
Your citation compares two years to arrive at one data point, and one data point
is literally meaningless in connection with long-term trend.
Do you know how to read graphs? Look at the one on the page linked below.
From your own citation (pdf, emphasis added):
(from link):
Furthermore, the citation above is contradicted by the FBI, which reports a 4% decrease
in violent crime in 2011 compared to 2010:
FBI: Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2011
(from link):
Also see:
FBI: Violent Crime Rates 2007-2011
(from link):
Murder Rate
-3.5% 2007/8
-10.0% 2008/9
-6.0% 2009/10
-4.0% 2010/11
-Criminals don’t obey laws.
-Criminals don’t obey gun control laws.
-According to the FBI, Chicago has more gang members (11 per 100k) than any other city in the U.S. (NYC and LA only have 10 per 100k)
-Chicago criminals don’t appear to be afraid of carrying guns in Chicago.
-Chicago criminals aren’t afraid of using firearms in Chicago.
-Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982. The last numbers I saw indicated that there were just over 200k “legally” owned handguns remaining in Chicago.
-The Chicago City Council created a 1-month amnesty for gun owners to RE-registration in 2008 when Ald. Richard Mell (Gov Blagojevich’s Father-in-Law) forgot to re-register his guns.
-Chicago was forced by Federal ruling to allow hangun ownership in 2010. (McDonald v. Chicago)
The bottomline is that Chicago’s gun control laws do not appear to control the actions of criminals who intend to ILLEGALLY carry and use firearms. I doubt that even more gun control laws restricting legal firearm ownership will stop criminals who have no intention of obeying them.
If the answer isn’t in the gun laws as they are now written, what’s the next feasible step, in your opinion?
I’m not in favor on increasing our prison population, so I’d look for ways to significantly increase the punishment for crimes committed with guns. Perhaps a very long probation period with ankle bracelet monitoring. Probation until you’re at least in the “not so violent” age demographic of > 35 years old.
But if you violate parole, and use a gun to commit a crime again, then lock 'em up and throw away the key.
The problem with widespread ankle bracelet use is that you are basically putting them on welfare, aren’t you?
Not sure, but that would be better and cheaper than prison.
Logically, true. Realistically, there’s a tremendously large pro-prison lobby out there that would immediately put out a “CRIMINALS ON WELFARE!!” campaign against the idea.
I could suggest that Chicago duplicate what other cities the same size have done but you rejected that option in the OP.
I’ve known several Chicago street cops (friends of friends) over the decades. They know where the gangbangers are. They know who is carrying. They know who the leaders of the gangs are. They also who the criminals “clout” is. However, they are not assigned the duty of rounding up those criminals and they had better not be wasting city time and money doing something they haven’t been assigned to or they might be assigned to a different area.
Chicago’s priority has been to remove firearms from the hands of the residents.
Their priority should have been to reduce violence. Not gun violence but violence. Reducing violence by removing the people who resort to violence. Arresting a homeowner who owns an unregistered firearm for self-protection doesn’t stop gangbangers from shooting up neighborhoods (the reason for higher murder rates) or stores from being robbed. Creating laws that makes it easier for Chicago police to arrest the self-defense minded person who has a handgun has no effect on the criminal who isn’t going to obey the law anyway. Plus, it’s the professional criminal and gangbanger who are more than likely to be able to afford the best (aka high priced) legal assistance or has the clout to reduce the charges or make them go away.
The attempts to disarm people always meets with resistence (accept in City Hall). Attempts to reduce violence is a goal that most people could agree with.
Well, firstly I’m not so sure they would mainly be on welfare. What evidence do you have that they would?
Secondly, I don’t know that there is such a “tremendously large pro-prison lobby” that would do that.
It applies anywhere a firearm can be transferred face to face without a background check, so it doesn’t matter whether it specifically applies to Chicago when you can simply go across the Mississippi and buy a gun out of someone’s trunk.