The Examiner
Myth #3: Chicago's homicide rate proves gun control laws do not work
Myth number three relies on myths number one (Myth #1: Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country) and two (Myth #2: 2012 was a record homicide year for Chicago) as its
foundation and then argues that because Chicago is the murder capital of
the United States and because last year was a record year for
homicides, then the city's strict gun laws must be a failure. Following
this logic, they argue that gun control is actually the reason the
murder rate of Chicago is at a record high and that gun control is the
reason Chicago is the nation's deadliest cities. Of course, because the
entire argument is built upon piling one piece of misinformation on top
of another, it crumbles upon further analysis. A number of right-wing
sites including the National Review and Breitbart News advance a
variation of this argument, citing the 1982 Chicago handgun ban as a
failed policy. Of course, this argument is based on the myths above.
Once you acknowledge that Chicago's homicide rate is not among the top
cities in the nation but that it sits at number 41 in the country and
that the city's homicide total has dropped from nearly 1000 a year
before the ban was put into place to around 500 a year now, it is hard
to argue that the city's strict gun laws are a failure. With a homicide
rate that may be on pace to be its lowest in fifty years,
the dirty truth might be that the gun laws in Chicago are actually
preventing the carnage from being a lot worse. To see what Chicago might
be without its gun law in place one could visit New Orleans, Detroit or
nearby Gary, Indiana for some field research, but there is no guarantee
that the researcher would survive the experiment, because those cities
are not nearly as safe as Chicago.
The Cities that you cited as an example of a high murder rate correlating to less stringent gun laws fail as a reliable comparison to Chicago, as the Windy City, in stark contrast New Orleans, Gary, or Detroit, is littered with enclaves of wealthy urban professionals who serve to offset the homicide rates of the low income neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteOne must also consider the median income, poverty rate, and unemployment rate, for all of the subject populations before any reliable conclusion may be drawn.
The fact remains however, that Chicago's handgun ban (like that of the nations capital) never served as anything more than a political statement to serve the vain interests of a successive line of publicity starved mayors.
It's always cute to watch gun control freaks asset that Chicago's gun laws have made that city safer, but the much better gun laws of the majority of the country have no relationship to the much lower homicide rates there.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, my assertion is that gun laws--whether good or bad--have only an indirect influence on the rates of violent crime, although the general effect of good gun laws, i.e. those that protect freedom, is to improve the situation.
Undoubtly, chicago's murder rate roughly follows the national trend: rising though the 80's, peaking in the early 90's, and falling to where they are today. The author makes no attempt to compare Chicago's trend, only to say that it is not the worst place in the country (and frankly I haven't see anyone say they have the highest murder rate. Is he making up a myth to break?). Chicago is bad though, and their gun laws haven't helped. Yes there are also bad places with better laws for gun rights, so make your case for how gun control is useless vs. actually detrimental. But if we want to look at the abolute worst- which cities leads in murder rate over the last 30 years? DC.
ReplyDeleteNew Orleans?
DeleteIt is New Orleans now, but it used to be DC. Over the time period (a span of over 30 years) when DC had the toughest gun control in the country (along with Chicago), DC led the nation in murders.
DeleteYes, and NOLA was second along with Detroit and many others. So?
DeleteSo... there's no correlation between gun laws and violence. By pointing to New Orleans and Detroit you can build yourself a case that gun control is mearly uselessas opposed to the cause of violence. Knock yourself out- I agree that it's useless.
DeleteIt's like you haven't heard me say this before.
So, as I've told you many times before, gun laws don't correlate with rates of violence. You've named two cities, Chicago and D.C., with strict gun control and two with laws that have loosened over time, New Orleans and Detroit. Note that the constant factors in all four are population density, poverty, and Democratic Party control.
DeleteNo, gun control is far from useless. As the post I made the other day points out, Chicago violence would be far worse if it weren't for the laws they have. By the same token, New Orleans would be far down the list if they had similar laws.
DeleteMikeb, you said you don't always read my comments. Do you read yours? Are you seriously that oblivious? We have here two cities with high murder rates. One has strict gun control, the other doesn't.
DeleteTo a rational person, the data from those two cities suggest that gun control doesn't work. You, by contrast, believe that evidence works however you want it to work. Lots of murders in Chicago? Things would be worse without gun control. Lots of murders in New Orleans? Things would be better with gun control. That's not how logic and evidence operate.
You're as bad as a creationist or climate change denier. You shift the rules around in the same comment to fit your pet belief. Tell me this: What would falsify your position?
You called it useless (or nearly useless). Don’t you remember your whole “we have no gun control” spiel?
Delete