http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/black-body-count-rises-chicago-police-step-back

 

If I was an inner city cop today, I'd walk away from my job.

 

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/black-body-count-rises-chicago-police-step-back

What an odd choice of examples why "restrictive gun control laws laws" work or don't work.

In your world, would the children who were shot supposed to carry guns to protect themselves? Was the last victim, a 71-year-old man going to suddenly be protected if the city opened up their gun purchasing rules?

Do you think the city officials who implemented the gun laws didn't anticipate its residence would walk outside of city limits and buy one? No, they fully anticipated it. The gun laws were passed to let the residence know the city leaders were doing everything in their power to solve the problem.

Do you think one less gun was sold because of the Chicago gun laws? No, only the NRA wants you to think this is happening.

Why do they want you to think The citizens of Chicago have no access to guns?

 

What an odd choice of examples why "restrictive gun control laws laws" work or don't work.

In your world, would the children who were shot supposed to carry guns to protect themselves? Was the last victim, a 71-year-old man going to suddenly be protected if the city opened up their gun purchasing rules?

My reason for posting the link was to point out the overall level of murders in Chicago as compared to its restrictive gun laws rather than to individual killings. I didn't post it as the definitive word on gun control, but rather as input for those who might want to consider it as part of their reasoning on the issue.

It's really easy (for me) to understand why restrictive gun laws don't and won't work: if they did reduce homicides, Chicago would not be among the leading cities in the country in gun homicides. And as to residents walking outside the city limits to buy guns, it would be a long walk since the state of Illinois also has extremely restrictive gun laws. My belief is that most of the gun homicides in Chicago were committed with guns that were not legally purchased by the shooter. Thus, the obvious conclusion to me is that restrictive gun laws do not reduce gun homicide rates.

Do you think the city officials who implemented the gun laws didn't anticipate its residence would walk outside of city limits and buy one? No, they fully anticipated it. The gun laws were passed to let the residence know the city leaders were doing everything in their power to solve the problem.

No, the gun laws were passed by politicians who want the public to think that they (the politicians) want what's in the public's best interest, which most of them (the politicians) don't want. Most of the politicians want to get reelected term after term so they can continue to feed at the public trough, and/or enjoy the ego boost their position provides them.

Murder is already a crime; making gun ownership a crime doesn't deter thugs, gang-bangers, and drug dealers from having guns or committing murder. In fact, even a superficial knowledge of the lifestyles of such miscreants reveals that they revel in breaking gun laws and as many other of society's rules as possible. It's part of their "initiation" rites and/or proof of man/womanhood. Their status is improved in their own eyes and the eyes of their peers by breaking as many laws as possible.

Do you think one less gun was sold because of the Chicago gun laws?

Yes, I think there were, and are some law abiding citizens of Chicago who were/are deterred from buying a gun legally because of the complexity of the process and/or the paperwork involved. In addition, I think there were more guns sold illegally for the same reasons, and for the reasons I previously described.

No, only the NRA wants you to think this is happening.

Why do they want you to think The citizens of Chicago have no access to guns?

I have been a member of the NRA from time to time, but am not currently a member, and I have never had any say in the NRA's stand on gun laws. Thus, bringing up the NRA doesn't affect my position one way or the other. I don't know what the NRA is "thinking" and don't care any more (or less) than I care what the ACLU, the NAACP, the KKK, the GOP, the DP, or any other group "thinks." In fact, I avoid "group think" as much as possible, and try to form my own opinions about all things (including gun ownership and crime) based on my own experiences and reason.

Maybe I have made my position and rationale clear, or maybe not. Either way, I am not going to further debate the issue in this thread. I doubt seriously that I will change your opinion, and the arguments you have posted here and in other threads certainly won't change mine.

 

It's really easy (for me) to understand why restrictive gun laws don't and won't work: if they did reduce homicides, Chicago would not be among the leading cities in the country in gun homicides. And as to residents walking outside the city limits to buy guns, it would be a long walk since the state of Illinois also has extremely restrictive gun laws. My belief is that most of the gun homicides in Chicago were committed with guns that were not legally purchased by the shooter. Thus, the obvious conclusion to me is that restrictive gun laws do not reduce gun homicide rates.

Looked at from the UK this looks very odd. Here, with some particular exceptions, no-one has a gun and compared to other countries we have very low rates of death by gun.
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2016/06/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

 

Chicago is an example of how well restrictive gun ownership laws work.

Chicago is an example of a city in which the police force has been continuously and notoriously corrupt since the days of prohibition, and probably before that.
I was there in the 1960's and the police were already known as an occupying army called, "Daley's Boys".
When the local government earns no respect, the laws have little effect.
Point: Chicago is not a good example for, "how laws work".

 

Looked at from the UK this looks very odd. Here, with some particular exceptions, no-one has a gun and compared to other countries we have very low rates of death by gun.
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2016/06/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/

Albert, your example is null an void by most American's opinions - it makes too much sense.

ProGun americans want to use Chicago as an example instead of the UK or australia. Chicago is an island of no assault rifle sales and still, highly accessible guns just a short car-ride to the boarder of the city - and then use Chicago as an example of why gun control doesn't work. Additionally, there are no laws that confiscate guns that people already own or from people who live outside of Chicago and are allowed to own guns in their home city - they are perfectly allowed to travel into Chicago.

Again, Albert, please stop trying to bring reasonable arguments into this discussion.

 

we have very low rates of death by gun.

There could be a gazillion different reasons for that.

Pointing to the uk low gun crime rate as support for gun control in the US is just as moronic to point to the high gun crime rate in Chicago as to how gun control would work.

You have to do more analysis to isolate the impact of gun controls.

Conceptually, it is silly to deprive law abiding citizens right to own guns as the primary way to reduce gun related crimes committed by criminals. Rather than gun control, the focus should have been on crime control, or criminal control.

With that said, I'm sure easy availability of guns does contributed to gun crimes.

 

You have to do more analysis to isolate the impact of gun controls.

No I don't.
My risk of being gunned down in the street or by a burglar are vanishingly small.

 

There could be a gazillion different reasons for that.

That is the typical response when UK gun crimes rates are quoted.

The atypical argument for why the assault rifle ban in Chicago should be lifted came from our OP -

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/12/black-body-count-rises-chicago-police-step-back

and I still can't get my arms around the basis of his thinking (core fact of that article is this)...

The August victims who survived included 10-year-old Tavon Tanner, shot while playing in front of his house (the bullet ripped through Tavon’s pancreas, intestines, kidney and spleen); an 8-year-old girl shot in the arm while crossing the street; and two 6-year-old girls.

On Sept. 6, a 71-year-old man was accosted by a teen on a bike while watering his lawn. The robber demanded the man’s wallet and when he refused shot him in the abdomen, then grabbed his wallet before pedaling away.

I just don't see how overturning bans on certain guns would have helped those kids, or giving a 71-year-old man permission to buy an assault rifle will help him while he waters his lawn.

 

Obviously they need to pass a law that makes not obeying guns laws a crime.

That will fix it.

 

Chicago ... A long history of abiding laws, especially during the prohibition. I'll bet the political animals who passed prohibition thought they were protecting the people. That worked so well, they did it with drugs and now weapons. Utopia is great. What's that sound? It's the alarm clock waking me up from that fantasy.

 

Do you think the city officials who implemented the gun laws didn't anticipate its residence would walk outside of city limits and buy one? No, they fully anticipated it. The gun laws were passed to let the residence know the city leaders were doing everything in their power to solve the problem.

Do you think one less gun was sold because of the Chicago gun laws? No, only the NRA wants you to think this is happening.

So your argument in defense of Chicago's unconstitutional gun restrictions is that the laws were for political show and never intended to accomplish their stated goals, that gun sales have been unaffected?

 

There could be a gazillion different reasons for that.

Pointing to the uk low gun crime rate as support for gun control in the US is just as moronic to point to the high gun crime rate in Chicago as to how gun control would work.

You have to do more analysis to isolate the impact of gun controls.

Conceptually, it is silly to deprive law abiding citizens right to own guns as the primary way to reduce gun related crimes committed by criminals. Rather than gun control, the focus should have been on crime control, or criminal control.

With that said, I'm sure easy availability of guns does contributed to gun crimes.

There is plenty of data in this thread. Joey will tell you I made it up.
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/security-in-orlando.125133/page-3#post-1011736
I think it is safe to say that if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.
Even if the secondary causes race, poverty or whatever.
@AlbertHall may get stabbed, but probably not shot and would have a better chance to live through it.

 

Albert may live through a knife attack, or any aggravated assault. People will use whatever weapon is handy. I saw a one punch fight where the recipient died after his head hit the curb. If fists were outlawed, he might have lived.

 

I think it is safe to say that if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths.

Perhaps, but people will still die.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ba...three-americans-hacked-to-death-and-beheaded/

 

So your argument in defense of Chicago's unconstitutional gun restrictions is that the laws were for political show and never intended to accomplish their stated goals, that gun sales have been unaffected?

I would argue that anyone who wants a gun in the greater Chicago metro area has a gun. They may not be able to have the gun they want but there is no gun-starved market anywhere in Northern Illinois. Guns are only an Uber ride away.

 

So your argument in defense of Chicago's unconstitutional gun restrictions is that the laws were for political show and never intended to accomplish their stated goals, that gun sales have been unaffected?

My statements were an argument for gun laws? No, my statements were an argument that the OP has not spent a single second thinking about how to form an argument. since you are arguing, please make an argument of how the murder rate in Chicago should be solved.

 

...please make an argument of how the murder rate in Chicago should be solved.

Tactical nuke?

 

========================================
Mr constitution suggests killing millions of American citizens without a trial. Wow.

...And appeantly believes the current murder rate is not a problem because killing the rest would be the solution.