Chicago's gun crime rates were lower in 2013 than 2012 (over 500 homicides
that year), but that detail would just be inconvenient when criticizing
Chicago's strengthened gun laws.
All you need to know about gun control laws is that cops carry guns to protect
themselves, not you!
Don't sing too loudly -- Utah and Chicago have almost equal
populations, and Utah doesn't fair much better than "violent"
Chicago.gun deaths ------------Chicago = 372Utah =
309The sad fact is, half of Utah is LDS.
We have two choices in America. We can believe that most people are criminals
and that they require restrictions to protect them from each other or we can
believe that most people are good and noble and that they are fully capable of
living honest upright lives.Who in Chicago is using firearms to
commit murder? Is it the honest, law abiding citizens who purchased firearms
from gun stores using their true identity? Or, is it criminals who have
obtained those firearms illegally, who file off the serial numbers so that the
firearms are hard to trace, who disobey any law that restricts them?Chicago is noted for more than just its high murder rate. It is the home of
the "insurance" industry where shop owners either buy
"protection" and "insurance" or have buildings burned and bones
broken. It's justice system is known to be corrupt.The 2nd
Amendment protects us from a corrupt government that would oppress us. Ask
George Washington why he insisted that American Citizens be guaranteed the right
to keep and bear arms. It wasn't for duck hunting.
I would prefer not to ever have to think about protecting my self. But the odds
are, someone is in the fantasie world living in their own realm, thinking that
they need my stuff more than me. Sounds like an elected person. Somebody that
thinks I don't matter as much as them.
Good article. Anyone who knows anything about real criminals knows that (a)
they will get the means to destruction if that's their purpose, and (b)
they couldn't care less about any laws passed by society. They will
continue to do what they do, and more/stricter laws only leave would-be victims
at their mercy.
airnaut,According to Wikipedia... Chicago (one city) had 515
homicides in 2012, and 416 in 2013. Evidently not all homicides
are committed with guns. So doing away with guns will not do away with
homicides. But it does insure that Chicago residents will have the means to
defend themselves from the other myriad of methods of committing robbery and
homicide.===I found the Utah Department of Health
website that gave the 330 gun death statistic for 2012 in Utah. One thing you
conveniently left out (right after that number), and this is a quote, "The
majority of firearm-related deaths in Utah are the result of suicide".I suspect the number you got for Chicago was the number of homicides
(not suicides). Which would make it an apples to oranges comparison.Gun control will not end suicide. A person wanting to commit suicide will
use pills or some other method.Gun control won't eliminate
violent crime, robberies, or homicides (based on the number of homicides
currently committed without a gun each year). It just insures the law abiding
will be completely unarmed.Gun control for city folks may be a good
idea. But not for the whole nation.
A major thing left out of the argument that "bad guys don't care about
the laws, and the good guys aren't the ones cause crime" is the fact
that most guns used by the "bad guys" are stolen from the "good
guys." The vast majority of guns on the black market are lifted in auto or
home thefts. The more "good guys" you allow to have guns, the more
"bad guys" are able to get their hands on them. The ones in Chicago
have been found largely to come from nearby Indiana where the gun laws are
significantly weaker and gun theft is a major issue. Advocates have
also been unable to demonstrate that having a gun in the home makes you safer.
Quite the opposite has emerged time and time again, that having a gun in the
home increases the likelihood you will die by a gun. That could be suicide.
Suicide attempts with a gun are far more "successful" statistically. It
could also be the fact that most people think they're Rambo, but in the
heat of the moment, most freeze up (even soldiers at the end of basic training).
Congratulations to the editorial writer for finally getting it.Gun
control simply does not work. Don't take my word for it, see what the
Center for Disease Control study showed: Basically NO gun control laws have
been proven to reduce violent crime.Then, compare the facts that the
violent cesspools which have the strictest gun control laws blame their problem
on just not having quite enough gun control. Meanwhile, they attack surrounding
areas with relatively few gun control laws and very low crime rates. If their
logic was valid, the "weak" gun control areas should have massive
violent crime problems, but it simply is NOT the case at all.It's not the guns, it's the criminals!As John
Lott's studies showed nearly 20 years ago "More guns [in the hands of
law abiding citizens], less crime."
Struck by 2 Bits' comments, I did some research of my own and was amazed
that western states were higher in suicides than eastern states but eastern
states had higher murder rates. My comparative analysis of the ratio of murder
to suicide per 100,000 population showed Illinois third highest and Utah was
#47. It seems Westerners generally prefer harm to themselves rather than to
others.@OHBUAdvocates are unable to use vast statistics to convince
the uninformed, but facts are never an impediment to a closed mind.
Airnaut/ldsliberalHomicides and Suicides are totally different
things. Comparing apples to oranges.
If the residents of Chicago want more restrictive gun laws in Chicago...
that's great. But no NATIONAL law should be passed to infringe
nationwide.National law makers in Washington just can't know
everything that's going on in every State. The issues in rural Utah may
be very different from the issues in urban Chicago. So people in Washington
(who may not know Utah exists, or what our problems are) passing "one-size
fits all" type legislation for all cities in the nation... is not the
correct approach (IMO).Gang-bangers and drug-dealers in Chicago may
abuse weapons (along with other things). That doesn't mean EVERYBODY is
going to abuse their 2nd amendment rights.Don't infringe on
everybody, just because people in Chicago can't control their own crime
problems!And a Washington beurocrat can't really legislate away
the rash of school shootings we've had. We all need to make sure people
in our family who are unstable... don't have access to guns (legal or not).
SchneeSalt Lake City, UTChicago's gun crime rates were lower in
2013 than 2012 (over 500 homicides that year), but that detail would just be
inconvenient when criticizing Chicago's strengthened gun laws. Did you happen to notice that SCOTUS ruled that the citizens of Chicago have a
basic human right to own guns and keep them in their homes and since that time,
you are right, the murder rate is dropping due to the large increase in gun
ownership. Now the citizens fear the criminals more than their dictatorial
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTAnti Bush-ObamaChihuahua,
00Airnaut/ldsliberalHomicides and Suicides are totally
different things. Comparing apples to oranges.11:38 a.m. Jan. 28,
2014======== Death by Fire-arms is Death by Fire-arms,
period.It's YOU that is splitting hairs and rationalizing to suit
your agenda.FYI - I own fire-arms.I was also a member of a
bonfide Militia (per the COTUS).And most of the Chicago deaths were
eye for an eye, Gang-member vs. Gang-member, retaliation, revenge killings.Not bad guy vs. good guy -- defend the Constitution Tea-Party heros.
Chicago should go after criminals who misuse weapons of any kind including guns.
Then stop interfering with law abiding people as they own and use guns. With
this ruling the criminals will begin to be at risk and crime will go down.
Gun control works. It's more than a convenient coincidence that the article
totally ignored the fact that Chicago tried to go it alone, and no city is an
island, certainly not Chicago. The gun control efforts in the city were a boon
to the gun shops in surrounding communities, thereby dooming Chicago's
efforts and making skewed articles like this possible. Guns are portable; a
nation wide control effort would mitigate this problem.
Hutterite,Re: "a nation wide control effort would mitigate this
problem"...So would a nation-wide gestapo, concentration camps,
and a national disarmament policy. All things leftist governments throughout
history have almost immediately established for their people... to control them
(for their own good of course).
Re HutteriteYou seem to believe that if the order were put out
nation wide to collect all guns the criminals would obey. All such an order
would do is to make most law abiding people defenseless. Then the problem
Chicago now has would be nation wide.You also seem to forget or
purposely ignore history. Murder was a common occurance long before there were
guns. Back then it was easy for the strong to have their way with weaker people.
Now that guns exist, if a strong man were to break into a single mothers home
the intruder is at risk and he knows it. The woman can feel at peace she has a
legitimate means to protect herself and her family.Assuming the
woman bothers to learn about and follow the rules of gun safety, her gun will
make her and her family safer.
Law abiding people need no laws. They know what is right and wrong. Criminals
obey no laws. The only thing that they "respect" is punishment. When
someone murders someone, why should the murderer ever be released from prison?
How can that murderer restore a life? How can that murderer ever replace what
he has destroyed? If murderers were kept behind bars for the rest of their
lives, they would never murder anyone outside prison. On another
note, one poster told us that all gun related deaths should be lumped into one
column on his spreadsheet. I would hate to be his accountant. He would
probably list all expenses in the same column. He would pretend that because he
couldn't see the difference between homicide and suicide, that nobody else
could see the difference. Because he works for the DOD, he would have to lump
all military deaths in the same column. Would he put those deaths in the KIA
column? Would he puts those deaths in the suicide column? How would he account
for the 22 soldiers who commit suicide every day?
2 bits...thanks for offering, but I think we're good with just a little gun
control. cjb...I didn't say all the guns, did I? I'm a gun
owner, too, and I want to keep them. I'm thinking a few easy steps,
background checks, waiting periods, maybe get rid of assault weapons. Similar to
those ideas successful in Australia or the UK or Canada. Your fear of a dystopic
future is preventing us from dealing with a dystopic present.
Let's have a waiting period before we can buy a car. Why not? There are
over 50,000 automobile related deaths per year. Why not take away our
"right" to own an automobile, after all there is no Constitutional
guarantee that we have the "right" to own something as dangerous as an
automobile. Why not sue the government for selling automobiles? Why not sue
them for their cash for clunkers program, which was just an incentive to have us
buy more cars. Why not blame the automobile for killing millions of
Americans?Yet, those who want to ban guns use that logic to tell us
that law abiding citizens who have a CONSTITUTIONAL guarantee to keep and bear
arms should have to wait, or have a background check, or have some other
GOVERNMENT required checkpoint before we can do exactly as the Constitution
guaranteed us the right to do.
@DocgmtThere were 931 homicides in Chicago in 1994. It dropped over the
decade down to 453 and 451 in 2004 and 2005. The lawsuit that struck down the
gun ban was in 2008 (DC vs Heller). In full years after the ban was struck down
it's been...2009: 459 2010: 436 2011: 435 2012: 516
2013: 415.So the vast majority of the improvement in the
homicide rate was before the gun ban was struck down.
I doubt that many people want to buy a car just to use it to run over someone.
But people can buy guns for the purpose of using, perhaps in a violent way.
Isn't that worth being a little...careful?
Hutterite said: "Gun control works."He is absolutely
correct. Just take Kristallnacht for example (of which the 75th anniversary was
just last November). Had Hitler not had the wisdom to require gun registration
in 1932, followed by total confiscation in 1938, Krisallnacht would have been a
bloodbath. Who knows how many innocent paramilitary and non-Jewish civilians
would have been shot and killed by the Jews whose homes and shops were being
vandalized and destroyed!?Due to Hitler's foresight, only 91
Jews were killed. So yes, Hutterite is correct that gun control works - - well,
at least for one side of the argument, anyway....
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahOn another note, one poster
told us that all gun related deaths should be lumped into one column on his
spreadsheet. I would hate to be his accountant. He would probably list all
expenses in the same column. He would pretend that because he couldn't see
the difference between homicide and suicide, that nobody else could see the
difference. Because he works for the DOD, he would have to lump all military
deaths in the same column. Would he put those deaths in the KIA column? Would he
puts those deaths in the suicide column? How would he account for the 22
soldiers who commit suicide every day?4:21 p.m. Jan. 28, 2014========== Mike -- read the article, I did not differentiate
because the article did not differentiate.It said "deaths at the end
of a gun", period.BTW -- Thanks to your buddy Bush [who you
voted for, twice] and your wasted wars in the Middle east -- more U.S. service
men die by fire-arms by their own demise, than by enemy fire-arms and IEDs
combined.Giving Osama Bin Laden the last laugh I'm sure.
I despise guns, but don't disagree with the rulings. Until regulation is
uniform nationwide, local laws will continue to be undermined by the lack of
them next door. But I was struck by this note: "Municipalities
shouldn’t be allowed to block the sale of products that are both legal and
explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution." It made me think of
abortion. And Obamacare. Both legal. Both constitutional. And yet opponents
have been relentless in their attempts to thwart, restrict, or otherwise
undermine these laws.The thing is, this is within their rights to
do. It's annoying and objectionable (when you don't agree with it),
but it's our process and, when appropriate, the courts ultimately decide.
So drop the holier-than-thou, "we would never do that" tone. We all do
Hutterite,I just disagree with the notion that it has to be a "nation
wide control effort".The problems and concerns in Chicago are
not shared by people in rural Utah. The laws needed to control Chicago's
problems are not the laws needed to control the problems they have in Richfield
Utah.One-size-fits-all nationwide legislation is overkill.It's this "centralized government must fix all problems"... that
eventually leads to an urban problem driven police-state. Detroit may need a
RoboCop. Small town Utah doesn't.I think the solution needs
to be more local (not nation-wide).We need (and we already have)
background checks and waiting periods. They aren't working. Doing away with assault weapons doesn't fix the problem. They just use
a different type of weapon.We need to police ourselves to really
solve the problem (not expect the central government to do it). The central
government doesn't reliably know who's unstable... but the family
usually does. Even if the person is only temporarily unstable (drunk, having a
marital problem, etc).WE need to keep weapons from unstable people
(not expect the central government to do it)
Just to broaden the conversation, laws to ban gun violence don't work in
Chicago because of all the other sociological factors present. However laws to
control drinking in Utah do reduce traffic deaths despite all of the
sociological reason present that would give Utah the lowest drinking rate per
@airnautSo where are the gun deaths in Chicago taking place verses
the murders in Utah? And who is doing the shooting?Based on your
last comment about how "half the state of Utah is LDS" you paint a very
broad picture that a good number of gun murders in Utah are committed by LDS
Church members. No doubt, in your view, this means concealed carry permit
holders who vote Republican.One of the arguments made by gun control
advocates is that those who own a firearm are out of control, blood thirsty
lunatics. That was the argument made over and over again in Michael Moore's
documentary "Bowling for Columbine." If this stereotype
was even partly true, then the number of gun related deaths in Utah would be off
the charts. We should be number one in the country in all gun related death
categories, but we're not.Why not?
500+, this number sort of pushes the Travon Martin death into perspective. One
such death is a cause célèbre while the other 499 (sic) don't
mean a thing. Shame on the media for following one such story for profit and
circulation and ignoring the lack of respect for the law in a society where the
justice system is out of control.