The USA is rated 8th in the world regarding total murders ( USA has a large population ) and 94th regarding murder rates (per 100,000 inhabitants
However, if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St. Louis, and New Orleans, the USA would rate about 160 out of 219 nations.
All five cities mentioned have the strictest gun control laws, suggesting its an urban /ethnic type of problem, and gun control laws don’t seem to work as intended.
I don’t see any mention on that page of what you say. A search reveals no instances of Chicago, Detroit, Washington, etc. on that page.
You probably shouldn’t get your information from 5 year old memes.
Snopes says it’s false.
As does this guy
Also, reported for forum change.
That link shows the USA as being 126th on murder rate. About 5 times the rate of the UK.
You can’t just take the big murder cities out of the calculation either and re-order the list, not unless you also do the same for every other country on there as well. Can I take the top 5 murder cities out of the UK figures?
As for gun control in those cities? what is the point in having pockets of gun control when the rest of the country allows you access to pretty much unrestricted weaponry?
Getting from Chicago with tight gun control restrictions to Indiana, which is a pretty much anything goes state in terms of gun law - or Wisconsin which is also not strict - is not exactly difficult.
be fair, you might have to drive for anything up to 30 minutes.
Moving from Elections to GD.
[/moderating]
Before we can prove your wiki information to be false, I think you have to prove it even exists. Did you mean to post to some other wiki page?
It is also not true that “Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St. Louis, and New Orleans” have “extremely strict gun control laws”. Before the Heller decision, that was true of Washington, D.C. (which is not only a city, but also a state-like entity with home rule since the 1970s); even after Heller, the District of Columbia still has fairly strict gun laws, at least by American standards. (A U.S. Court of Appeals ruling from last year will further weaken the District’s laws–or further move D.C. in the direction most of the rest of the country has already taken, if you prefer–by making Washington a “shall-issue” jurisdiction with respect to concealed carry laws. I don’t know to what extent that decision has been fully implemented; at any rate, the D.C. concealed carry laws still look pretty strict in many ways compared to other “shall-issue” jurisdictions. [PDF file])
Chicago also had strict gun control laws before the McDonald decision, but they have now been substantially liberalized; and Chicago’s ability to control owning or carrying guns within the city is limited. Illinois as a whole does still have fairly strict gun laws in several respects, for a “shall-issue” jurisdiction [PDF file], but Illinois is nonetheless–like most of the rest of the country–now “shall-issue” after another U.S. Circuit Court decision a few years back.
(It is certainly true that the previously strict gun control laws in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago did not actually keep those cities from tending to have murder rates that were frequently high even by U.S. standards.)
Otherwise, most gun laws in the U.S. are at the state level, not the local level. Over 40 states have “preemption” laws that largely ban municipal or local governments from regulating firearms one way or the other (typically, the only exceptions will be for “discharging firearms within the city limits” type laws; and even those kinds of regulations will often be required by state law to have exceptions for legitimate use of firearms in self-defense). So claiming that Detroit, St. Louis, and New Orleans have “extremely strict” gun control laws is not true–those three cities have the same gun control laws as Michigan (moderately strict by American standards, with registration of handguns and universal background checks for handgun purchases, but no “assault weapon” laws or magazine size restrictions, no registration of long guns–rifles or shotguns–and a “shall-issue” law concealed carry which also automatically recognizes the licenses of license-holders from any other state); Missouri (a “constitutional carry” state where no license is required to carry a concealed firearm in public and with generally quite permissive gun laws); and Louisiana (a generally very “gun friendly” Southern state). It may well be that politicians in those cities would like to have stricter gun control laws, but they aren’t actually allowed to do that by the laws of the states their cities are in.
Cities with genuinely strict gun control laws (by American standards) include Newark or Baltimore (because New Jersey and Maryland as a whole have relatively strict gun control laws), and in fact Baltimore has a very high murder rate; on the other hand, New York City (which has had strict gun control laws for decades) has gotten dramatically safer in recent years than it was back in the Seventies or Nineties.
Very interesting to note that the initial forum was Elections.
In the U.S.A., much of the consternation about Guns Guns [SIZE=“5”]Guns![/SIZE] has little to do with citizen safety or the lack thereof, and very much to do with getting redneck votes for certain politicians.
Sure, higher than the UK. But 20 times lower than El Salvador, which has strict gun control laws. Four time lower than Mexico, also with strict laws.
Right, so unless we can establish 100% International Gun control laws, gun control laws are useless. That old saw about Chicago getting it’s guns elsewhere (which is partially true) which is why Chicago thus has high violent crime, despite strict laws- falls apart.
So you think the USA is more correctly grouped with El Salvador and Mexico rather than other first world western nations?
Also, do they have “strict gun control laws” or are their guns “strictly controlled” there is a difference. In the UK it is both, in the USA neither.
I don’t follow your logic. If guns are easily available and transportable from areas of low control to high control then you will do nothing to manage the numbers of guns available. If you tighten up and restrict supply countrywide and across the border then you will. Do you not agree?
Mexico and the uSA have a lot in common.
No, since Gun control in the uSA has always failed to reduce violent crime, and there is always a excuse, usually that “they” are getting their guns elsewhere. No matter how widespread the gun control the gun grabbers will always trot out that tired excuse why their gun grabbing has failed to reduce violent crime.
[QUOTE=DrDeth;20844772Right, so unless we can establish 100% International Gun control laws, gun control laws are useless. T[/QUOTE]
Just trying to understand your logic here. So in principle, cities, counties, states, and countries are foolish to ban anything that isn’t banned internationally because those things will find their way in anyway?
Well, they have the same problem as Chicago. Got a giant gun seller right next door. The guns are crossing the border, but they are going into mexico. Maybe they should build a wall.
Is that how you feel about all laws and regulations? Unless you can show that there will be 100% universal acceptance and compliance with a law, it is useless?
I don’t think this is a fair criticism. Interstate travel within the US is entirely different than international travel across borders. Sure the borders in some countries at some places are more porous than others, but they are not the same thing as traveling between states or even cities within the US.
Someone on here mentioned a good point in one of my thread before.
The correlation with places and high gun violence is social welfare. Places with higher gun violence than the us but less guns per capita all have the same problem, poor social welfare. In Chicago, I’m assuming they have poor social welfare, in America in general the way we privatize everything and tyr to make everything profitable has lead to our social gun problems.
Specifically in America the mentally ill either do not receive treatment, or receive piss poor treatment. The drug companies are private companies who’s main goal is to make profits. Hospitals, doctors, all stand to make a profit by prescribing more drugs to people. What I believe has happen is there are many people who are being prescribed drugs specifically so they have to take those drugs for the rest of their life.
From what I’ve been told, many of these drugs specifically the ones for depression tend to make people “not give a fuck”. When you combine the private sector trying to make money with prescribing mentally ill people medicine you get a population of borderline dangerous people who are jacked up on any number of drugs purely for psychological reasons.
We need to drastically change the way we handle patients in America. I think the best start is to get rid of legal bribery, and put some progressives in office. 
The obvious problem with comparing violence rates with gun control laws is the potential reversal of cause and effect. Those locales that have high levels of gun related crime are places that citizens demand gun control, not that the gun control causes the high rates of violence.
No, they are foolish in thinking that gun control- within the limits of the 2nd Ad- will reduce violent crime. The* excuse* will be that the laws would work fine, but people bring in guns from outside.
Nope, not at all. But so far, gun control laws in the USA have not shown ANY significant decrease in violent crime. So, gun control laws are useless. However, the *excuse *will be they dont work due to outside guns coming in. Instead of - they simply dont work here in America.
