This article offers one person’s viewpoint:
Are they useful ideas?
How can any conceivable gun laws prevent beforehand illegally obtaining a gun for criminal purposes? Gun laws can only impose punishment after you’re caught. As others have posted, it isn’t like there are checkpoints around the Cook County border. So guns are illegal in Chicago- well duh, criminals violate the law. Gun prohibition has worked about as well in Chicago as alcohol prohibition did.
I will call BS on that logic.
Look at Geneva and Zurich in Switzerland…the Swiss gov’t requires all males from age 20 to 32 to own an M57 assault rifle. Both are large, densely populated cities…yet they have virtually zero gun murders, year after year.
I think one of the problems here is that Chicago is it’s own breed of cat.
Back (way back) when I lived in St. Louis I remember reading an article in the Post-Dispatch giving an interesting statistic. The article related that as of the time of printing, Chicago had had 999 mob related murders since the start of Prohibition, precisely two of which had been solved.
As I left St. Louis in 1965, this article was probably printed in the early sixties.
I think the problem is a false premise in the op that even if true (which it is not) would be pretending an issue of many variables was actually dependent upon just one.
St. Louis has almost 3x the murder rate of Chicago. Chicago is sort of middle-of-the road, as US cities go.
But note that gun-totin’ Texas has no large cities with a murder rate as high as Chicago’s. They must be doing something right in that state, as its cities tend to be on the low end of the scale.
I’d ask the question instead - what has Chicago done right over the past 20 years that they have cut gun deaths by more than half in that time period? No “well, over in this country…” -Just Chicago’s gun deaths and Chicago’s gun laws. What is working, and why.
And of course while that premise is actually true it is a silly one. Effects of gun laws at a local level , if they exist in either direction at all, are swamped by other variables.
If that is true that gun deaths in Chicago are turning around, I’d be damnhappy…and I’d still like the reason why, too.
The cite and figures were provided to you early in the thread by John Mace, post #17. Murders in Chicago are less than half what they were 20 years ago. It has been a fairly consistent drop. That is roughly the sameas it is across the United States, and probably all due to the same factors.
Maybe there are other factors as well. Maybe these guesses are wrong. I can’t say I’d know.
I would suspect that local (city level) gun laws have extremely little effect on crime in either direction but actually answering the question would require examining rates between cities controlling for all other potential confounding variables … something well nigh impossible to do and one that rarely serves the purposes of those who participate in gun debates who are not looking for truth but for data that fits what they already believe to be. I appreciate this not being another one of those threads.
If that’s where the data leads, then it’s logical I head in the same direction.
I never claimed that population density was the only factor in determining the rate of gun violence, simply that it’s one major one. And in fact, anywhere in the world, per capita rates of violent crimes are higher in cities than in rural areas. Clearly, there is some other factor different between Switzerland and the US that leads to such low violent crime rates, and it would certainly be valuable to know what that factor is, but I don’t know enough about Swiss society to speculate on what that might be.
The only gun control in Chicago that I’ve believed in was the no-questions-asked-turn-in. Basically you bring in a gun and the city gives you 2 Bulls tickets. I don’t think they do it anymore though. Now I admit the folks who are turning in these guns are not the ones likely to use them for nefarious purposes, but they just might be inclined to sell them on the street for cash when times get rough.
Actually I think the criminologists are missing something, reason being that other things have improved too, not just crime. Teen pregnancy and abortion rates are at all time recorded lows both because of better birth control and more deciding to wait longer. Other than marijuana use teen drug use is down. Fewer teens drink and drive.
Overall youth today are just more responsible and less violent than previous generations. Go figure.
They give out gift cards now, I believe.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
You know that’s already illegal right?
Some more statistics for you - Tracking homicides in Chicago
Rubs bridge of nose [ol]
[li]Factual correction: As far as I know, there is no such thing as a M57 Assault Rifle. The rifle issued to Swiss Citizens is the Sig Sauer SG 550. (And/or a sidearm for officers and medical personell.)[/li][li]Factual correction [minor]: Citizens retain their weapons until age 30, 34 for Officers.[/li][li]Lacking context: The Swiss have elected to have no standing army, relying instead on a trained militia consisting of conscripted male citizens who train for up to or over 260 days in the Rekrutenschüle, starting at age 20. The service is performed either as one comprehensive stint or a 18-21 week course and then annual 3-week refresher courses until the 260 day mark has been hit. All physically capable males in that age group is considered elegible for conscription, but a citizen can easily be deferred on medical or conscientous grounds, or can be kicked out of this “boot camp” on the judgement of their superior officers. Citizens in this military service store their weapon (without ammunition as of 2007 IIRC, except for fast-response teams) at home, where they effectively serve as reservists.[/li][li]Misleading conclusion: False equivalence. The thread was talking about the civilian population. The comparison to the Swiss is about actual, trained military servicemembers. Nobody is suggesting taking away the guns from reservists. This is a completely apples-to-oranges.[/li][/ol]I move to dismiss. 
Scroll down in this link for a great graph of the long term murder rate trend in Chicago.
That said the first part of 2012 was bad. Oh not bad compared to the 90s but back up to nearly what it was in 2008. Coming back down now, in fact October was the second lowest month for murders in 30 years, but the earlier part of the year was higher than the last several had been, interrupting what had been a long decline. This occurred even as other crimes decreased.
Could just be a statistical fluke. Can’t blame the warm winter because NY had it just as record warm and they ran record low numbers, much lower per capita than Chicago. Increased gang activity is the party line … but that just begs the question. Why so much more gunfire with gangs this year? I’m pegging it on policing. The big increase was by mid-April and since then, after they began ‘citywide "gang audits’ in which specialized units share gang intelligence with beat officers in an effort to prevent retaliatory shootings" rates have dropped back down. Why they were not already doing that is harder to figure out.
According to the wikipedia stats for 2010, the homocide stats for Chicago were about 3 times the national average, but most cities have a homicide rate above the national average. The highest homicide rate in the country is New Orleans, which is about three times the Chicago rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate#2010_Data
You can click on the graph and sort it by homicide rate.