Monday, April 19, 2010
Chicago Gun Violence
Incredibly, what some people say is that Chicago needs more guns and fewer gun control laws. Does that make sense to you? When you consider that every one of those guns used for criminal violence started out as a legally owned forearm sold by a legitimate gun dealer, you have to wonder about that.
I say, not only Chicago, but all the other States need much stricter gun control laws. The fact that the already existing laws are not preventing these spurts of violence is not evidence that those laws should be abandoned but rather that they should be strengthened and applied everywhere and enforced.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Labels: gun control, gun rights
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Once more, RuffRidr offers gas instead of facts. Chicago is among the nation's leaders in the number of police per 10,000 citizens with just over 50.ReplyDelete
By way of reference, the average large US city has just under 30 cops per 10,000 citizens.
But again, Chicago's gun homicide problem is nowhere near as bad as those places with little gun control.
Mikeb: "I say, not only Chicago, but all the other States need much stricter gun control laws. The fact that the already existing laws are not preventing these spurts of violence is not evidence that those laws should be abandoned but rather that they should be strengthened and applied everywhere and enforced."ReplyDelete
Chicago is often used as an example of some of the most severe gun laws in the US. How would you make Chicago's gun laws "stricter"?
If you make gun laws "stricter" and the problems continue or worsen, your answer will obviously be "make gun laws even stricter." Is there ever a point when it would occur to you that that's not working and another approach is needed?
The obvious problem with FishyJay's response is apparent. He believes gun control has been tried in this country.ReplyDelete
Of course, it hasn't.
The fact is that anyone in the US can buy virtually whatever firearm he desires. To the extent whatever gun control exists in this country--about all it does it make it slightly more difficult or slightly more timeconsuming to do so.
According to FJ, this constitutes unbearable oppression and tyranny.
Of course, FJ's solution is to make it markedly more easy for anyone to get whatever gun he desires. And, BTW, make sure it is impossible to prosecute crimes committed with firearms.
But again, Chicago's gun homicide problem is nowhere near as bad as those places with little gun control.ReplyDelete
Ah good old Jadegold, telling lies again....
The fact is that anyone in the US can buy virtually whatever firearm he desires.ReplyDelete
Another statement, another flat out lie.
Does this ever get old for you Jadegold?
I see Mike W. is eager for a little lesson. I shall oblige our resident mouthbreather.ReplyDelete
Chicago's murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate is 18 per 100,000 citizens. (2008 stats)
This figure is nothing to write home about but consider these major cities rates (2008 stats):
St. Louis: 46.9
New Orleans: 63.6
Kansas City: 25.5
All of these cities have little or no gun control yet have higher murder rates than Chicago.
Once more, Mike W. demonstrates his lack of education.
I see Mike W. also takes issue with the fact that one can buy virtually any firearm one desires in the US. I see he wants to be spanked on this as well.
Thanks JadeGold for taking up the argument. I really appreciate your pointing out how the gun guys misrepresent Chicago.ReplyDelete
FishyJay, Thanks for not pointing out that Chicago is not a State. You got what I meant and responded to it.
I'm not sure we'd have to strengthen the Chicago laws as much as regularize some of the neighboring areas to the same level of control. It's the gun flow that needs to stop.
OH boy, Jade shows his ignorance again.ReplyDelete
We also have per 2008 data, in states with far less gun control than Chicago and/or IL.
Phoenix AZ - 10.5
Houston, TX - 13.1
Las Vegas, NV - 8.9
San Antonio, TX - 8.6
Dallas, TX - 13.3
Austin, TX - 3.1
Louisville, KY - 11.3
Anchorage, AK - 3.6
Meanwhile we have many cities with very strict gun control and wildly high murder / nonnegligent manslaughter rates.
Here are a few
Baltimore, MD - 36.9 (how's that gun control working out for them?)
District of Columbia (the bastion of gun control in America) - 31.4
Oakland, CA (in #1 Brady Ranked CA) - 28.6
Newark, NJ - 23.9
It's almost as if strict gun control doesn't actually lower crime! Big surprise!
Gun control is irrelevant to crime control. Chicago has a cultural problem. Gang and thug culture rules it's youth and the price is paid in blood.ReplyDelete
When you start filling the jails and graveyards with gang bangers, instead of putting them back on the street, then you'll see a reduction in crime.
Sadly, Mike W. wasn't content with his last humiliation and demands a second helping.ReplyDelete
As always, I'm here to oblige.
Mike W. still can't--or won't--explain why he and his fellow male enhancement fetishists are exercised about Chicago's murder rate when New Orlean's is over three times as high.
Could it be he really isn't concerned about murder rates but is deeply worried he, too, can't worship Timmy McVeigh?
It's odd that he mentions ststes like MD and NJ--perhaps Mike W. doesn't realize they have pretty lax gun laws.
It's odd that he mentions ststes like MD and NJ--perhaps Mike W. doesn't realize they have pretty lax gun laws.ReplyDelete
Boy is it easy to point out the anti-gunner lying.
New Jersey has a Brady Campaign ranking of #2 out of 50 states
Maryland ranks 5th out of 50 states
That's almost as moronic as your buddy Democommie telling me that California (#1 Brady Ranked) has "relatively lax gun laws"
And really? What does McVeigh have to do with a discussion of gun control and murder rates?ReplyDelete
Oh right, nothing, but Jade brings it up anyway because he knows he's full of shit.
Could it be he really isn't concerned about murder ratesReplyDelete
Oh I am, but I realize the problem is the people not the guns. Chicago has a serious cultural problem (and the kind of ideology that shirks personal responsibility by blaming objects only exacerbates said problems)
Then again weren't you at one point a paid shill for a gun control group (Ceasefire Maryland) which was so unsuccessful it's now defunct.
It appears as though Mike W. is drinking early; perhaps to wash away the pain of his failed existence.ReplyDelete
It must sadden Mike W. that his hero, NRA hall-of-famer Timothy McVeigh isn't held in the high esteem Mike W. regards him. And on this Tim McVeigh day, gunloons could only attract about 30 members of the Enzyte fan club to rail at the Potomac on a nice sunny day.
Ahhh well. Mike W. can gaze at the pictures of his fellow gunloons and know his fate: a big ass, no female companionship, underemployment, and an abundance of ignorance.
See mikeb, all your side has to offer are lies and petulant personal attacks...ReplyDelete
"The fact is that anyone in the US can buy virtually whatever firearm he desires. To the extent whatever gun control exists in this country--about all it does it make it slightly more difficult or slightly more timeconsuming to do so."ReplyDelete
Finally, I agree with Jade Gold. Gun control is ineffectual and does not stop gun crime.
One other thing I noticed about this site, the media and people in general is that the only ones mentioning Timothy McVeigh yesterday were liberals. They almost seem to be worshiping and celebrating him. Rachel Madcow was giddy about the 15th anniversary.
Ahhh well. Mike W. can gaze at the pictures of his fellow gunloons and know his fate: a big ass, no female companionship, underemployment, and an abundance of ignorance.ReplyDelete
Just look at the level of civil discourse Jadegold brings to the table MikeB.
You must be thrilled to have him on your side.
One thing that is clear from all these stats being bounced around by both sides; there is NO correlation between gun laws and murder rates. The onus is on those wanting to restrict a right to prove that gun control works. We don’t need to prove anything.ReplyDelete
TS, That's really good gun rhetoric, but who says the onus is there? I say the onus is on you since it's your toys that are responsible for depriving people of the right to be safe. What about the right of a mother to not have to worry about her adolescent kids getting shot? What about the right of a Starbucks patron to not have to wonder what the intentions are of the armed patron next to him on line? Someone could probably twist the Constitution around to justify those as true rights, and it would make about as much sense as your claiming the 2nd Amendment or the Supreme Being as the source of your "right."ReplyDelete
I say the onus is on you since it's your toys that are responsible for depriving people of the right to be safe.ReplyDelete
The onus is ALWAYS on those seeking to restrict individual rights. That's one of the basic tenets of the American legal system.
If you don't like that go live somewhere else.
More simple than a matter of “rights” is that the onus is on those requesting a change. The onus is likewise on the gun rights side to get “shall-issue” CCW laws passed. This gets accomplished by coming to the table with more than just the feelings of a Starbucks patron.ReplyDelete
How about computers and cameras?
I say the onus is on you since it's your toys that are responsible for depriving children of the right to be safe.
So, when do you stop objecting to computer registration, background checks, etc?
Bob, You're answering a question with a question again. Besides that, I don't like comparisons. I'm suspicious of those who continually use them instesd of answering the first question. That question was, if you oppose gun control laws and the result is death and injury, are you partly to blame?ReplyDelete
Typical MikeB - Don't actually address anything, just say "I don't like comparisons"ReplyDelete
Of course you don't. You don't like any statement or comparison that makes you look like an intellectual fraud.
MikeB: “That question was, if you oppose gun control laws and the result is death and injury, are you partly to blame?”ReplyDelete
First you’d have to prove gun control laws prevent death and injury. Good luck with that.
I’ll go ahead and answer a question with a question as well. If you push for waiting periods, and someone gets killed by a stalker during said waiting period, are you partly to blame?
TS, That's a good counter-question to which I answer yes. We've discussed this many times in the DGU debates. It boils down to "do guns do more harm than good?" I say yes, by a long shot.ReplyDelete