What Happened to Chicago’s Crime Rate When Illinois Relaxed Gun Control Laws

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2014 9:24 PM GMT
    http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/26/happened-chicagos-crime-rate-illinois-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

    140826_Guns-FINAL-01.png
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3525

    Aug 27, 2014 12:02 AM GMT
    Or you could read the whole article, not just the "correlation masquerading as causation" headline, and find this little gem:

    "The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”
  • gcoastmark

    Posts: 83

    Aug 27, 2014 10:55 AM GMT
    Apparition saidOr you could read the whole article, not just the "correlation masquerading as causation" headline, and find this little gem:

    "The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”


    The CPD regularly removes a large number of illegal guns each year from the streets. That particular quote is a bit misleading. Every so often there is a "gun exchange" for tickets to a basketball or football game or a pair of Jordan's. Not sure that it's pertinent.

    There are two other things to throw in the mix, the category of crime can be "adjusted" so more serious crimes are under reported and this flies in the face of the daily headlines of those shot/killed every night and weekend. Perhaps the violent crimes occur more often but in concentrated areas of the city.

    After everything is said and done, it seems like states that have higher gun control laws have higher incidents of higher crime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 1:58 PM GMT
    there is a lot of money on people's opinions.

    organizations are willing to spend mad money to develop the junk science to support their side.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 2:28 PM GMT
    gcoastmark said
    Apparition saidOr you could read the whole article, not just the "correlation masquerading as causation" headline, and find this little gem:

    "The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”


    The CPD regularly removes a large number of illegal guns each year from the streets. That particular quote is a bit misleading. Every so often there is a "gun exchange" for tickets to a basketball or football game or a pair of Jordan's. Not sure that it's pertinent.

    There are two other things to throw in the mix, the category of crime can be "adjusted" so more serious crimes are under reported and this flies in the face of the daily headlines of those shot/killed every night and weekend. Perhaps the violent crimes occur more often but in concentrated areas of the city.

    After everything is said and done, it seems like states that have higher gun control laws have higher incidents of higher crime.


    I'm seeing a lot of conjecture but few facts and certainly no references in your attempted rebuttal. Chicago has had gun exchanges far longer (and some of the strictest gun control legislation in the US during this time) than the change in gun controls. So unless you are claiming that somehow they got so much more effective, this seems to be a red herring you're throwing in.

    Certainly I'm not precluding other possibilities but Chicago has been notorious for gun control along with its high violent crime rate - one of the highest in the US. Further, the places that do have the most gun control like DC and Chicago are equally notorious "after it's all said and done" to have much higher levels of gun violence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 2:31 PM GMT
    Apparition saidOr you could read the whole article, not just the "correlation masquerading as causation" headline, and find this little gem:

    "The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”


    Of course they would. There are few law agencies that would acknowledge that giving people more power to respond to crime would reduce crime - and certainly not one like the CPD that has failed for so many years to contain gun violence. While he notes that 1300 guns have been recovered in the first 3 months of this year, guess how many have been recovered over a ten year period ended 2012?

    50,000. So if anything that 1300 is about average.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Aug 27, 2014 3:41 PM GMT
    Chicago murder rate 80% black, 13% Hispanic, 7% other.....and they blame it all on guns
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 3:49 PM GMT
    jock_1 saidChicago murder rate 80% black, 13% Hispanic, 7% other.....and they blame it all on guns


    Well, the fact that concealed carry can reduce gun violence seems like a good thing.

    For many I suspect, the deep rooted reason for gun control is well, control.
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1491

    Aug 27, 2014 3:52 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    jock_1 saidChicago murder rate 80% black, 13% Hispanic, 7% other.....and they blame it all on guns


    Well, the fact that concealed carry can reduce gun violence seems like a good thing.

    For many I suspect, the deep rooted reason for gun control is well, control.


    Yes, its sad. They all want to control but nothing is ever done to change the culture of those who use guns.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 4:00 PM GMT
    jock_1 said
    riddler78 said
    jock_1 saidChicago murder rate 80% black, 13% Hispanic, 7% other.....and they blame it all on guns


    Well, the fact that concealed carry can reduce gun violence seems like a good thing.

    For many I suspect, the deep rooted reason for gun control is well, control.


    Yes, its sad. They all want to control but nothing is ever done to change the culture of those who use guns.


    Not to mention the fact they'd rather like to hide the racist history of gun control:
    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/1/for-some-blacks-guncontroldebateraisesechoesofsegregatedpast.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 4:11 PM GMT
    Truly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 4:18 PM GMT
    Blondizgd saidTruly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.


    Hunting? Self defense? Target practice/sport? I count at least three. I suppose cops then should only be allowed to carry knives? Maybe your military as well. Swords, I guess if they're lucky but I guess those would only be defined as being only having one sole purpose for the sake of your definition?

    And this paranoia you speak of... you do realize what the crime rate in Chicago used to be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 5:47 PM GMT
    Some murders need to be reclassified as "Pro Bono Publico." Then our murder rates won't be so high to begin with.

    You live by the sword; you die by the sword.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 5:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Blondizgd saidTruly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.


    Hunting? Self defense? Target practice/sport? I count at least three. I suppose cops then should only be allowed to carry knives? Maybe your military as well. Swords, I guess if they're lucky but I guess those would only be defined as being only having one sole purpose for the sake of your definition?

    And this paranoia you speak of... you do realize what the crime rate in Chicago used to be?


    I do realize an instrument that has as its sole purpose:

    Death
    Destruction
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 6:01 PM GMT
    Blondizgd said
    riddler78 said
    Blondizgd saidTruly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.


    Hunting? Self defense? Target practice/sport? I count at least three. I suppose cops then should only be allowed to carry knives? Maybe your military as well. Swords, I guess if they're lucky but I guess those would only be defined as being only having one sole purpose for the sake of your definition?

    And this paranoia you speak of... you do realize what the crime rate in Chicago used to be?


    I do realize an instrument that has as its sole purpose:

    Death
    Destruction


    Tell that to this guy:
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/26/89-year-old-vet-fends-off-a-second-armed-robbery-at-his-store/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 8:02 PM GMT
    Blondizgd saidTruly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.


    Spoken like someone who has no clue about the realities outside of your mind.

    Come live where I live. Live my life for a year and see if your attitude doesn't change.
    I live on a 2000 acre ranch in the Mtns with 3 sons under 18 (one 16, 9 and 8 icon_cool.gif), about 20 minutes out of Park City and about an hour from Salt Lake. To gain access to my house you would have to leave a paved highway for a smaller paved highway and then get on yet a smaller paved road and exit that onto a dirt road and again exit that onto a smaller dirt road and then drive about 2 miles up the dirt driveway to my house. From the third story window of my house I can not see the house of my closest neighbor. How long do you think it will take for someone to respond to a 911 call from my house?

    On any given day I may have to deal with and protect my stock and family from packs of wild dogs, coyotes, both lone wolves packs of wolves (currently at least two packs of wolves are known to cross my property), Mtn. Lions and black bears. And of course there are the unpredictable testosterone fueled acts of aggression from deer, elk and antelope during the rut. How long do you think you can make a living or raise a family out here without something between you, your family, your stock and the wild animals?

    Out here we still have rustlers and poachers. Three weeks ago I rode up on two men who had just poached an elk and were removing the hind quarters, maybe you can calculate my chances of surviving that encounter without my rifle between me and them?

    Come live here and live my life for a year and if you still "do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for it's creation". If that "instrument that has as it's sole purpose:
    Death
    Destruction" Doesn't become "an instrument that has as it's sole purpose:"
    Preservation of life
    Protection of property, then "I do realize" a fool when I see one!


    Maybe you aren't aware that during the Ferguson Mo. riots among the few businesses and stores that weren't looted were those stores where the owners and employees stood outside of their businesses armed with guns?

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18935-armed-business-owners-scare-away-looters-in-ferguson

    There are a lot more shades of grey out here in the real world than the black and white world that lives inside your head.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 8:18 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Blondizgd saidTruly Americans are paranoid savages!

    I simply do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for its creation.


    Spoken like someone who has no clue about the realities outside of your mind.

    Come live where I live. Live my life for a year and see if your attitude doesn't change.
    I live on a 2000 acre ranch in the Mtns with 3 sons under 18 (one 16, 9 and 8 icon_cool.gif), about 20 minutes out of Park City and about an hour from Salt Lake. To gain access to my house you would have to leave a paved highway for a smaller paved highway and then get on yet a smaller paved road and exit that onto a dirt road and again exit that onto a smaller dirt road and then drive about 2 miles up the dirt driveway to my house. From the third story window of my house I can not see the house of my closest neighbor. How long do you think it will take for someone to respond to a 911 call from my house?

    On any given day I may have to deal with and protect my stock and family from packs of wild dogs, coyotes, both lone wolves packs of wolves (currently at least two packs of wolves are known to cross my property), Mtn. Lions and black bears. And of course there are the unpredictable testosterone fueled acts of aggression from deer, elk and antelope during the rut. How long do you think you can make a living or raise a family out here without something between you, your family, your stock and the wild animals?

    Out here we still have rustlers and poachers. Three weeks ago I rode up on two men who had just poached an elk and were removing the hind quarters, maybe you can calculate my chances of surviving that encounter without my rifle between me and them?

    Come live hare and live my life for a year and if you still "do not understand the rationale for the need of having an instrument that has one sole purpose for it's creation". If that "instrument that has as it's sole purpose:
    Death
    Destruction" Doesn't become "an instrument that has as it's sole purpose:"
    Preservation of life
    Protection of property, then "I do realize" a fool when I see one!


    Maybe you aren't aware that during the Ferguson Mo. riots among the few businesses and stores weren't looted were those stores where the owners and employees stood outside of their businesses armed with guns?

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18935-armed-business-owners-scare-away-looters-in-ferguson

    There are a lot more shades of grey out here in the real world than the black and white world that lives inside your head.



    In the (real world) UK, lots of farmers are permitted to own firearms. That does not mean the UK is awash with guns or that they are a significant cause of death here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 8:24 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidIn the (real world) UK, lots of farmers are permitted to own firearms. That does not mean the UK is awash with guns or that they are a significant cause of death here.


    Yep... are you saying that it isn't guns that kill people it's people who kill people? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 8:27 PM GMT
    Interesting - but even if 100% true, the Chicago stats are misleading....

    Of course the rate of those crimes went down - the criminals, used to being the only ones walking around with hidden weapons, suddenly found themselves dealing with victims who had them as well.

    *HOWEVER*

    What if, just what if, the majority of the criminals didn't *have* guns, because they were much harder to get their hands on. If nearly every household that a thief breaks into has a handgun stashed somewhere, he can make a pretty penny just selling the stolen handguns to other criminals, thereby arming the villains with the "I have to have a handgun to protect my family" guns, which if they didn't exist, could not be used against the original owners. In a way, the easy access to handguns *creates* the need to have handguns, since they trickle down into the criminal world. If nearly *no* houses had them, they would be harder to get, and fewer criminals would have them, thereby requiring fewer law-abiding citizens to have them.


    @Shybuffguy - I agree with *your* situation - I also notice you aren't saying you are engaging in concealed carry of a handgun - since they would be less useful in warding off a pack of wolves, for example. Long guns *have* their uses.

    Note, I am speaking as a Canadian here - where long guns are still fairly common for exactly the reasons given by Shybuffguy, but handguns are comparatively rare. I have never felt the desire to buy/own a handgun to "defend my family" nor have I ever seen the *need* to. Given the relative rarity of them up here in the first place, it would be like investing in a hat with a lightning rod and grounding wire to protect myself from being struck by lightning, "just in case".

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 9:01 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidInteresting - but even if 100% true, the Chicago stats are misleading....

    Of course the rate of those crimes went down - the criminals, used to being the only ones walking around with hidden weapons, suddenly found themselves dealing with victims who had them as well.

    *HOWEVER*

    What if, just what if, the majority of the criminals didn't *have* guns, because they were much harder to get their hands on. If nearly every household that a thief breaks into has a handgun stashed somewhere, he can make a pretty penny just selling the stolen handguns to other criminals, thereby arming the villains with the "I have to have a handgun to protect my family" guns, which if they didn't exist, could not be used against the original owners. In a way, the easy access to handguns *creates* the need to have handguns, since they trickle down into the criminal world. If nearly *no* houses had them, they would be harder to get, and fewer criminals would have them, thereby requiring fewer law-abiding citizens to have them.


    @Shybuffguy - I agree with *your* situation - I also notice you aren't saying you are engaging in concealed carry of a handgun - since they would be less useful in warding off a pack of wolves, for example. Long guns *have* their uses.

    Note, I am speaking as a Canadian here - where long guns are still fairly common for exactly the reasons given by Shybuffguy, but handguns are comparatively rare. I have never felt the desire to buy/own a handgun to "defend my family" nor have I ever seen the *need* to. Given the relative rarity of them up here in the first place, it would be like investing in a hat with a lightning rod and grounding wire to protect myself from being struck by lightning, "just in case".



    Being a Canadian you should also know that gun violence per capita is significantly lower despite having very high levels of guns.

    A few other facts to brush up on:
    http://globalnews.ca/news/1354803/fact-checking-michael-moore-does-canada-have-more-guns-per-capita-than-the-us/
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 27, 2014 9:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidMakes sense... unless you are a liberal.


    Liberalism is about free speech (JS Mill etc) not guns. Christ, what is it with this rampant political-incoherency?
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 27, 2014 9:09 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIn the (real world) UK, lots of farmers are permitted to own firearms. That does not mean the UK is awash with guns or that they are a significant cause of death here.


    Yep... are you saying that it isn't guns that kill people it's people who kill people? icon_wink.gif


    As someone who lives in the UK, I can assure you not many people own guns - and it would be perceived as unorthodox for someone to be a gun-owner here, unless if their job qualified them to require one. In general, the people who own guns, only own them due to their profession: farmer, policemen, bodyguard - etc, etc.

    This issue is perhaps best defined not by how many people own guns but the gun-culture of a specific place. In the UK, we don't have a constitution like you guys in the US, thus we don't have a legally-binding document stating that it is the right of the citizen to be able to purchase and own a gun. That amendment is deeply imbedded in your culture as opposed to ours.

    I do not wish to sound snobbish or judgemental (I probably do anyway) - but as a Brit, it has always seemed strange when observing the culture of gun-obsession (or at the very least, the concept of owning a gun being a major political issue) in the US, because it is an ideological structure so separate from what we have hear in the UK. It always seems odd and alien.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 9:42 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidInteresting - but even if 100% true, the Chicago stats are misleading....

    Of course the rate of those crimes went down - the criminals, used to being the only ones walking around with hidden weapons, suddenly found themselves dealing with victims who had them as well.

    *HOWEVER*

    What if, just what if, the majority of the criminals didn't *have* guns, because they were much harder to get their hands on. If nearly every household that a thief breaks into has a handgun stashed somewhere, he can make a pretty penny just selling the stolen handguns to other criminals, thereby arming the villains with the "I have to have a handgun to protect my family" guns, which if they didn't exist, could not be used against the original owners. In a way, the easy access to handguns *creates* the need to have handguns, since they trickle down into the criminal world. If nearly *no* houses had them, they would be harder to get, and fewer criminals would have them, thereby requiring fewer law-abiding citizens to have them.


    @Shybuffguy - I agree with *your* situation - I also notice you aren't saying you are engaging in concealed carry of a handgun - since they would be less useful in warding off a pack of wolves, for example. Long guns *have* their uses.

    Note, I am speaking as a Canadian here - where long guns are still fairly common for exactly the reasons given by Shybuffguy, but handguns are comparatively rare. I have never felt the desire to buy/own a handgun to "defend my family" nor have I ever seen the *need* to. Given the relative rarity of them up here in the first place, it would be like investing in a hat with a lightning rod and grounding wire to protect myself from being struck by lightning, "just in case".



    First of all, I have had a CC permit since I was 18. As a business owner who is often alone late at night at one of my businesses and who makes sizable bank deposits, most days I do carry and I have had occasion to show my weapon. That you "have never felt the desire to buy/own a handgun", doesn't mean you know enough to decide what is best for the rest of us in our , or any other given situation, and that is really the point I was making.

    I would also suggest that you do some study before proposing your "trickle down gun theory". Nothing could be further from the truth than what you have suggested.

    A 1997 Justice Dept survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed (this data has been periodically a revised and analyzed with little change in more than a decade):

    39.6% of criminals obtained their guns from a friend or family member.

    39.2% from the street or an illegal source on the street.

    0.7% from a gun show.

    1% from a flea market.

    3.8% from a pawn shop.

    8.3% from retail outlets.

    Taking handguns from legal owners doesn't even make the list, and has in fact been shown over and over to be a false premise released by one discredited author of a very discredited study along with another discredited from the same study, that gun owners are overpowered and their guns taken from them , yet both ideas are often repeated by those ignorant of the facts as if they will somehow magically become truth. Given the facts, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that because legal guns and gun owners are registered that you may disarm legal gun owners because you know where the guns are and where to go to get them, but you will never be able to disarm illegal gun owners because you have no idea of haw many or where those guns are.

    As you said:
    "Of course the rate of those crimes went down - the criminals, used to being the only ones walking around with hidden weapons, suddenly found themselves dealing with victims who had them as well."

    In light of that, your answer is to make the rest of us politically correct victims of criminals by disarming us? That just doesn't make sense!







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 10:15 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 said
    riddler78 said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIn the (real world) UK, lots of farmers are permitted to own firearms. That does not mean the UK is awash with guns or that they are a significant cause of death here.


    Yep... are you saying that it isn't guns that kill people it's people who kill people? icon_wink.gif


    As someone who lives in the UK, I can assure you not many people own guns - and it would be perceived as unorthodox for someone to be a gun-owner here, unless if their job qualified them to require one. In general, the people who own guns, only own them due to their profession: farmer, policemen, bodyguard - etc, etc.

    This issue is perhaps best defined not by how many people own guns but the gun-culture of a specific place. In the UK, we don't have a constitution like you guys in the US, thus we don't have a legally-binding document stating that it is the right of the citizen to be able to purchase and own a gun. That amendment is deeply imbedded in your culture as opposed to ours.

    I do not wish to sound snobbish or judgemental (I probably do anyway) - but as a Brit, it has always seemed strange when observing the culture of gun-obsession (or at the very least, the concept of owning a gun being a major political issue) in the US, because it is an ideological structure so separate from what we have hear in the UK. It always seems odd and alien.


    Quite. Guns tend not to kill people in the UK because we don't have hundreds of millions of them kicking around, waiting to be misused, abused and stolen (thanks to some archaic and inappropriate 'right', that could and should have been dropped about 100 years ago).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 27, 2014 10:33 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 said
    riddler78 said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIn the (real world) UK, lots of farmers are permitted to own firearms. That does not mean the UK is awash with guns or that they are a significant cause of death here.


    Yep... are you saying that it isn't guns that kill people it's people who kill people? icon_wink.gif


    As someone who lives in the UK, I can assure you not many people own guns - and it would be perceived as unorthodox for someone to be a gun-owner here, unless if their job qualified them to require one. In general, the people who own guns, only own them due to their profession: farmer, policemen, bodyguard - etc, etc.

    This issue is perhaps best defined not by how many people own guns but the gun-culture of a specific place. In the UK, we don't have a constitution like you guys in the US, thus we don't have a legally-binding document stating that it is the right of the citizen to be able to purchase and own a gun. That amendment is deeply imbedded in your culture as opposed to ours.

    I do not wish to sound snobbish or judgemental (I probably do anyway) - but as a Brit, it has always seemed strange when observing the culture of gun-obsession (or at the very least, the concept of owning a gun being a major political issue) in the US, because it is an ideological structure so separate from what we have hear in the UK. It always seems odd and alien.



    You don't "sound snobbish or judgemental", you sound terribly naive and uninformed.

    I travel to the UK/Europe/Russia at least once a year and every other year my sons and I spend an extended visit in the UK/Europe/Russia visiting family. This year my sons and I spent two weeks of our seven week trip in the UK. In those two weeks my sons and I had occasion to hunt no less than five times, much the same as on other UK trips in the past.

    If you think there is not an established and flourishing gun culture in the UK, you are sadly mistaken at the very least or simply uninformed. As with so much else in the UK, there is an element of socioeconomic class involved. At least here in the U.S. gun ownership is not restricted to the upper class, yet!

    http://www.huntinguk.com/