Saturday, December 29, 2012

Chicago Murders are Up in 2012

USA Today
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says the city has logged its 500th homicide of the year.

McCarthy issued a statement Friday calling the milestone a "tragic number that is reflective of the gang violence and proliferation of illegal guns that have plagued some of our neighborhoods."

By late Friday, police confirmed 40-year-old Nathaniel Jackson had become the 500th homicide victim when he was fatally shot in the head outside a convenience store on the city's West Side.

The last time Chicago reached the 500-homicide mark was in 2008, when the year ended with 512 killings. City records show Chicago had 435 homicides last year.
The pro-gun crowd actually blames this on the gun control laws. They say if only good citizens were able to protect themselves, as is their constitutional right, there'd be fewer killings.

The only problem with that argument is it's based on a lie.  It's not good citizens who are being killed.  Almost all of the deaths are gang and drug related.

The undeniable fact is gun availability is a major factor in this sad statistic. That's what the gun-rights folks refuse to admit.

The same dynamic is at work in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Oakland and many other cities, murders up, mainly drug and gang related.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

48 comments:

  1. You have yet to show ONE gun law that has reduced crime. I've shown you more guns reduce crime using FBI and BJS so why can't you do the same? So till then yes we can blame the gun laws we can at least back up our claims, you can not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike, you've already acknowledged the major point that it's criminals targeting criminals. What is the objective here? Gun ownership should be banned because...?

    If you're saying a demographic like gangbangers would be less apt to violence without guns, I can only hope you're kidding. Or that somehow they'd be willing to turn over any guns they possess in the event of a ban or confiscation seems even more ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack, I never said gun ownership should be banned. What I say is with proper gun control laws, which we've never had, gun availability to the bad guys would be severely diminished.

      Delete
    2. Almost all of the deaths are gang and drugs related. Link to prove this please? How about those "few unimportant deaths" of good citizens? Their life isn't worth saving?

      Look Mike, criminals don't give a shit about the law, the sooner you get that through your head the sooner you'll quit being counter-productive and start ... you know ... being productive and suggesting laws that will work. If the guns are illegal the guns are illegal and saying gun control will solve the problem is like saying the war on drugs is a success ... and it isn't ... it's a costly failure.

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, you just admitted that the majority of homicides are criminals killing criminals, but you still want gun control on the good guys? Criminals will get guns regardless of what laws burden the rest of us.

      Thanks for acknowledging that your proposals would be a failure.

      Delete
    4. Don, either you're truly unaware of something or you're pretending to be like Greg does. Almost all guns used in crime are coming from you law abiding gun owners. That's why the comparison to drugs is so stupid. Illegal drugs start our illegal, illegal guns start out legal.

      Criminals have such easy access to guns because you law abiding gun owners are doing such a shitty job holding onto your property. We have a solution for that.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, you refuse to see facts. As Tennesseean points out below, Mexico has strict gun laws, and yet the gangs there are heavily armed. We have strict drug laws, but the drugs get in anyway.

      What it comes down to is this: If your proposals worked, only the worst people would be armed--just like Mexico.

      Delete
    6. Greg, repeating the famous lie, says, "Criminals will get guns regardless of what laws burden the rest of us."

      Since all the guns start out legally owned by someone, unlike drugs, restricting the legal owners is the only way to diminish the flow into the criminal world.

      It couldn't be simpler, Greg.

      Delete
    7. Mike,

      You are oversimplifying this matter. The guns start out legally owned, yes, either by individuals or governments. They then get diverted to the criminal market by criminal acts. Either theft, which we can seek to discourage and frustrate, but we can't STOP, or by illegal transactions. Either way, a law is being violated to divert the guns. People can already be sent to jail.

      As for drugs, a lot of prescription ones start out legal and get diverted to the criminal market. Others start out as legal chemicals that get transformed to drugs (e.g. meth). Others start out as legal crop land, and even legal plants (Coca is legal in parts of S. Am., it's the refining of Cocaine that is illegal).

      Restricting the access to these drugs and precursors hasn't helped stopping the illicit acts that put the drugs into the black market.

      You have offered vigorous assertion and repetition, but you haven't yet presented a convincing reason that restricting our access to guns will prevent their falling into the black market.

      Delete
    8. Who's over-simplifying? We can make safe storage mandatory. We can practically eliminate straw purchasing and we can make stop personal transfers without a background check.

      Do you honestly think that wouldn't put a crimp in the gun flow?

      Delete
    9. Mikeb, Americans aren't the only people to make guns. The Soviets cranked them out by the millions, and many countries continue to do so today. You're obsessed with American legal gun owners, but guns will pour in over the borders from all around the world if your proposals become law.

      Delete
    10. Mike,

      I went into more detail in this post ( http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-on-ny-firefighter-shooter-case.html#comment-form ), so I won't repeat it all.

      Short answer is the crimp would be minimal. Straw purchasers could still do their thing, there would just need to be more of them recruited, and the fee they're paid would also need to cover repair to their home and safe from the break-in that makes the transfer look like a legitimate theft.

      As for safe storage laws, that is a panacea that can be gotten around easily enough. There are safe crackers who can get into anything. most gun safes are built better than most other safes that are available on the market, but I've seen demos where guys get into them in 30 seconds or less. Criminals would just have to deal more with these pros to get their guns or learn the skills themselves.

      Finally, any crimp in the supply caused by these measures would be easily made up for by additional guns flowing in from the international market as Greg notes. Some already come in this way now, so the supply lines are already established.

      You propose gun controls that would be easily circumvented by criminals, but you claim that these would take out a lot of crime. In the mean time, you ignore the issue of the international black market in arms and don't tell us why you think that it wouldn't pick up any slack caused by your gun controls. This is why I say you are over-simplifying.

      Delete
    11. I disagree that the crimp would be minimal.

      Delete
    12. For God's sake man! Give me some damn reasons! You just keep saying "I disagree" without offering arguments as to why I am in error.

      If you don't argue reasons for your arguments, you can't expect us to be convinced of your position.

      Delete
    13. T., you've been around here long enough to have heard my reasons over and over again.

      More straw purchasers could not possibly make up for the ones who are working now who can buy multiple guns every week and not sweat any heat.

      Theft could be cut way down if gun owners knew they'd be held responsible for making it too easy.

      Private sales with no background check would be eliminated completely.

      Are you saying this is the first time you're hearing this stuff from me? If you think those changes would only result in a minor crimp, I think you're either lying or extremely blinded by bias.

      Delete
    14. Mikeb, that completely ignores the reality of America. We have 300,000,000+ guns. Most of those aren't registered. If we had zero guns or a lot fewer guns, your proposals could work--they'd still be an infringment, but they could work. It would take a while for new guns to be smuggled across the border. Criminals would have to be smarter about finding sources. But the number of guns currently in circulation means that your proposals won't do any good.

      Delete
    15. I've been explaining my reasons regarding each of these in that time:

      If there is money to be made--more money since the illegal guns would be more valuable and since you would have to get paid enough for the risk on a one time service, why wouldn't more straw purchasers take up a good chunk of the slack.

      I don't know what safe storage you desire, but I'm assuming either cable or trigger locks and storage in a safe. The safe is the only one of these worth a damn, and even it is something criminals can crack fairly easily. All they have to do is case the house and figure out when to hit so that they won't be interrupted. If they're desperate for guns, why wouldn't they increase their home burglaries? Why wouldn't they also try to use these thefts to make up for any shrinking supply due to the limited abilities of straw purchasers?

      Private sales are easily gotten around by having insurance that covers your safe as part of the contents of your home, and having an agreement on a cash transfer followed by a scheduled home burglary to make it look good for the cops.

      And finally, why would any crimp in the supply chain not be remedied by an increase in the supply of guns coming through Mexico, or from some other part of the world?

      I've been watching and waiting and never seen any answers from you, Laci, Dog Gone, Democommie, Jade, or anyone else here to any of these questions. Instead, I keep getting answers that say that the policies will work, but with no explanation of why or how. I'm not lying, and this isn't a matter of bias. I'm just thinking about these proposals and saying, "What would I do to get around this law if I was a criminal." If I can come up with EASY ways around these laws, don't you think criminals will do the same?

      Delete
    16. The weakest point of all of Mikeb's proposals is the human element. Officials give favors to powerful people, but not to ordinary citizens. As we've seen with a newspaper in New York, registration data can be obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request. That's a shopping list for criminals. What happens when a gang gets the information and then attacks a homeowner who is known to have guns? Those guns will be removed from the safe as soon as the gang beats the combination out of the owner.

      Mikeb's whole program depends on the idea that good citizens are not to be trusted, while criminals aren't all that bad or devious.

      Delete
  3. Is Mikeb saying Blacks shouldn't be allowed to have guns?

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike,

    When we say that the gun control has failed, the go to answer is that the guns are being trafficked in from Virginia, Tennessee, or some other state that has gun shows. Therefore, if we just had tougher national laws, the problem would supposedly disappear.

    This, however, ignores the fact that black markets still move guns into every country on earth, in spite of strict gun controls. Just look at Mexico as an example.

    If we banned assault weapons and limited access to other firearms, we would still see high crime rates in cities, and might see them in suburbs and rural areas too, because the whole US would now be Chicago--an island of gun control awash in a sea of guns.


    A better solution would be to work to reform the legal system so that these young men in inner cities will 1) begin to get a fair shake and see that so that they no longer think the system is rigged against them, and 2) see that if they continue down the road they're on, the penalties will become more severe and they will ruin their lives. Carrot and stick that get at the heart of gang violence whether it is gun violence or pipe and knife violence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T., we need to do all of it. You want us to do your "better solution" INSTEAD of addressing the gun availability problem. That's wrong.

      Delete
    2. The solution I offered would affect those who commit the criminal acts. If it is attempted and succeeds, there won't be need for your proposals.

      Your solutions would burden us and provide a slight speed bump to the criminals. After all, they will still be able to get weapons off the international market. You haven't explained what makes us special so that these guns, so available in Mexico and other countries, wouldn't come into the US along the already established pipelines that bring in drugs and other contraband.

      Delete
    3. But that's not enough. Your the one who keeps telling us criminals don't obey laws and that these things are already against the law.

      More is needed.

      Delete
    4. Criminals don't obey laws, so let's punish good people? That's what your proposals come down to. It's like proposing that we should all cut our own throats to feed starving hyenas.

      Delete
    5. Mike, your last response is a non sequitur. I wasn't proposing new laws for criminals to keep--you were. I was proposing that we fix our busted ass judicial system so that there wasn't a feeling of us against the world in the ghetto. A good step along with this would be more inner city ministries, schools, small businesses, etc. to revive the communities.

      The other thing I was suggesting was harsher penalties as a deterrent to violating laws. Will this make the criminals obey the laws? No, not all of them, but it will scare some into obedience and allow us to lock up others when they violate them.

      Delete
    6. T., let's do all that good shit. But, let's also make it harder for bad guys to get guns from good guys. This does not have to be seen as "punishing the good guys," as Greg keeps repeating. In fact it could be seen as quite the opposite. You guys would be the first to benefit.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, don't try any "this will hurt me more than it hurts you" argument. How would these insane proposals of yours benefit good gun owners? In what way would home inspections, psychiatric tests, licensing, and all the expenses associated with those be a benefit? In what way would restrictions on owning the guns that we already have, on getting new guns, on being able to carry guns be a benefit?

      Try to be honest, please. You're not fooling anyone.

      Delete
    8. Mike,

      I second Greg's question. I've explained our rational concern that a registration scheme would enable future administrations to start removing our guns from us piecemeal as we have watched happen in various jurisdictions. You have not even attempted to allay this concern.

      Also, you have continually talked about how we need to restrict who can legally get guns, how we need less guns, and less easy access, so it is disingenuous to tell us we would "benefit" from your proposals. Presumably, some of us would be ineligible for such permits.

      We would be more likely to believe your assurances if you said that you would tailor your schemes to strengthen background checks, but to minimize aggravation for those of us who Don't violate the law. However, when you say that we will benefit from having our rights curtailed and being told to turn in some of our weapons and magazines, it's transparently false and makes us disbelieve your statements that you don't want to ban all guns.

      Delete
    9. Yes, I should clarify. Those of you who really are lawful and responsible would be the first to benefit.

      Sorry I can't allay your fears that future generations of politicians will take away your guns. It sounds like paranoia to me. That's all.

      Delete
    10. Exactly how do we benefit? What do we gain? At the very best, we don't lose anything under your proposal. More likely, we lose some of our guns and have to replace our magazines with expensive, new production ones.

      Delete
    11. You would benefit like everyone else by living in a safer country. But, I suppose you're right, you don't have anything particular to gain. That sounds like a good reason to oppose it.

      Delete
    12. Mikeb, you're begging the question. In other words, you've offered your conclusion as evidence to support your conclusion. One of the points of debate here is what would make America safer. We deny that your proposals would do so. Beyond that, we have plenty of evidence that violent crime has fallen over the last two decades. What is undeniable is that your schemes would infringe on the gun rights that we're able to exercise at present.

      When you have something to offer, let us know. Until then, why should we support you?

      Delete
    13. Mike,

      Our reasons for opposing it have been laid out, and they have nothing to do with the fact that we don't gain anything under the law. You were the one saying that we would be the FIRST to benefit, so we challenged you to tell us how we would specially benefit. The closest you got was by suggesting that we would live in a safer world, though you still haven't explained why gun control here would work better than in Mexico, etc., so even that is a dubious suggestion

      Delete
  5. Mikeb,

    Almost anything can be a deadly weapon, even pillows. You are naive to think that gun control laws will stop criminals from acquiring firearms much less being violent. All the laws and security in the world has not stopped criminals from acquiring weapons and being violent in prisons. How much more will criminals do free out on the streets?

    Look at the underpinning of the situation -- gangs and drugs. We have laws that make the manufacture, possession, and sale of drugs illegal, and yet they are readily available -- so readily available that gangs fight for control of sections of the city to distribute their illegal narcotics.

    Beyond the fact that gun control laws will be totally ineffective, they infringe on all citizens' rights. No one has any legitimate authority to tell me what mechanical contrivances I carry around on my person. Whether I carry a can opener, a pair of pliers, or a firearm, that is my choice, not yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one on my side of the argument is saying proper gun control laws will stop ALL crime. That fact doesn't mean we shouldn't take measures to diminish it.

      Delete
    2. But you refuse to discuss effective measures to reduce crime. You refuse to recognize that crime rates have fallen already. You keep pushing proposals that would only harm good people.

      Delete
    3. Crime reduction is the stuff of other blogs. Wherever crime has fallen, it would have fallen more if we had proper gun control. Laws which would keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is not the same as harming good guys. You keep repeating this but it's bullshit, always was, always will be.

      Delete
    4. I'll look forward to your explanation on how your proposals aren't harm, but are instead good for us.

      Delete
  6. Mike,

    If you are not against a total ban on guns then why blame "availablity".If guns should stay legal as you say then how is lots of them a problem?

    Have you ever considered that the harder guns are to obtain the more of a draw there will be for them on the black market (alot like drugs)? The tougher you make the laws & punishment then the greater the draw will be to traffic in guns. When you crack down on every small time pusher of whatever you make it so only the strongest & smartest criminals rise to the top. Do you really want to make cartels wealthy (more than they are already) in trafficing drugs and guns?

    If tougher gun laws work then why is Chicago awash in gun crime - and other cities w/ the same level of availablity are not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chicago is a crap argument.

      Your solution is what, to make guns easier for criminals to get?

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, if gun control worked, Chicago should be safer. But it isn't. In addition, you have yet to explain why all those guns migrate to places where they're restricted or banned. Why don't they just stay home and kill people where they're legal?

      Delete
    3. Those things have been explained to you over and over again. You're becoming a drag.

      Delete
    4. It's hard to fight the truth. I don't recall seeing any response to that question here or elsewhere. Why do guns migrate to places where they're restricted or banned to do their evil?

      Delete
  7. MikeB wrote, "The undeniable fact is gun availability is a major factor in this sad statistic."

    The undeniable fact is that criminals' propensity for violence is a major factor in this sad statistic.

    Violent humans have attacked other humans for thousands of years, long before mankind invented the first firearm. Violent criminals will be violent with or without firearms. Your arbitrary notion of firearm availability is meaningless.

    There is one thing for certain. With my bare hands or even a club, I cannot stop a group of men from overpowering me and raping my wife and daughters. And with her bare hands or a club, my wife certainly cannot stop even one man from overpowering her and raping her or our daughters. The only way my wife or I can stop one man or a group of men from overpowering us and assaulting, raping, or killing us, is with a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one on my side of the argument is denying that "criminals' propensity for violence" is a major factor. Why do you deny that gun availability is?

      Delete
    2. Because there are increasing numbers of guns in the hands of citizens, loosened ownership and carry laws, and a falling violent crime rate.

      Delete
    3. The crime rate would be falling much more if it weren't for the increased guns. You're conveniently confusing correlation with causation.

      Delete
    4. Not at all. I didn't say that the fall in violent crime rates is due to increased gun ownership and good laws. My point, which I have made many times here, is that if you were right, we would have seen the opposite. Observe:

      1. You claim that gun availability is one of the causes of gun violence.

      2. Gun availability has increased over the last decades. People are buying guns, getting carry licenses, and the laws are getting better and better.

      3. Violent crime rates are down over the same period.

      Therefore,

      4. Gun availability isn't a cause.

      If we lived in a society in which few to no guns were available, then you would have a point. But we're not Japan and never will be. We'll always have lots of guns. The fact that crime rates have fallen while gun ownership and carry has risen over the same period shows that you're wrong, whatever the causes for either of those.

      Delete