Gun Control Laws Increase the Death Toll in Illinois

By Rob Morse

Democrat legislators in Illinois make it hard for honest citizens to protect themselves. Illinois’ government is controlled by Chicago politicians, and, sadly, those politicians like gun-prohibition.

They say their laws makes all of us safer. Facts say otherwise. Illinois politicians claim gun-control is “for the children” but we can count the bodies of the dead and injured who are the real victims of gun control.

Chicago has a problem with violent criminal drug gangs. Illinois politicians say the drug gangs would be non-violent if they couldn’t get guns. The solution, the politicians claim, is to pass more gun-control laws and to disarm more law abiding citizens. That’s what we’re told by Chicago politicians. The Chicago news media reports these political press releases  without questioning their truth or looking for alternative explanations.

Let’s do what the news media should have done and take a deeper look at the problem. With 2031 people shot and wounded in Chicago this year, and an additional 458 shot and killed, it is obvious that existing gun laws have not made us safe.

Still, politicians claim these violent drug gangs will obey the next gun law, even though the murderers, assailants and rapists ignored the 23 thousand existing firearms regulations that politicians have passed so far. Politicians say the same thing with every law they pass, so there is no reason to believe they are telling the truth this time.

Judge for yourself. We know that violent gangs in Chicago already smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants around the globe and across our borders. Politicians claim that new ink on paper will stop the gangs from smuggling the next a pound of steel, lead and gunpowder. That hasn’t worked so far.

These gun-prohibitionists claim that the problem isn’t really about Chicago. The city is an unfortunate victim of lax gun laws in other states. That is like claiming that the drug problem in Chicago is really the problem of lax drug laws in Columbia and China.

History shows us that when we take a shipment of illegal drugs away from the gangs, the gangs simply go out and buy more illegal drugs. Likewise, when we take away their guns, the criminals go out and get more illegal guns.

The fact we’re trying to ignore is that criminals break the law. They don’t obey our drug laws, our immigration laws, our prostitution laws, or our gun laws. Politicians can blame someone else, but Chicago politicians created the environment where people turn to drugs and to crime.

Chicago has both high crime AND stringent gun-control. Passing gun-prohibition laws and disarming honest citizens makes things worse rather than better. Disarmed victims are easy targets for gangs of armed criminals. Gun control reduces the number of honest and law abiding people who legally carry a concealed firearm in public. That leads to more crime victims.

Illinois makes it difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit, and nowhere is it harder than in the city of Chicago. Politicians required that applicants for a carry permit demonstrate their skill with a firearm. Then the politicians outlawed shooting ranges where honest citizens can learn to shoot and demonstrate good marksmanship. In contrast, the criminals use the streets of Chicago as their shooting range.

We can put numbers to the body count. The state of Illinois has over 300,000 licensed  concealed carry holders. That number should be closer to 800 thousand if Illinois had a concealed carry rate that matched the rest of the United States.

But Illinois isn’t like the rest of the US. An Illinois permit costs more and takes longer than almost any other state. Half-a-million people gave up on getting their permit because of the difficult process in Illinois.

Those law abiding citizens were disarmed in public by Illinois laws and regulations. Disarming half a million law abiding citizens has real consequences.

Based on FBI statistics, about 2700 of the victims of violent crime in Illinois this year were disarmed because of the extremely burdensome requirements that stopped them from going armed in public. We’ve made it hard on the law abiding citizens, but criminals don’t bother to follow those firearms restrictions.

Those 2700 victims were their own first responders. They were on their own to stop the attack on themselves and their families. They were on their own until they could call the police. They were on their own until police could get to the scene and arrest their attacker. Illinois politicians guaranteed that the criminals were armed, but those 2700 victims were not.

Most of those victims would have stopped their attacker if they were armed. Almost all of the rape victims would have stopped their attacker if they were allowed to go armed in public.

Self-defense seldom requires pressing the trigger. The vast majority of criminals run away rather than face an armed victim. That is a good thing.

Illinois politicians said that concealed carry holders are a danger to the public, but that isn’t true. Where we have data, we find that concealed carry holders are more law abiding than the police. Civilians who defend themselves with a firearm are much less likely than the police to shoot innocent bystanders. These people with a permit to carry a firearm in public are our neighbors, and as we’d expect, they behave responsibly.

Unfortunately, Chicago politicians would rather disarm the victims. The victims’ blood is on their hands. The victims of gun-control should be on our conscience as well.

 

This article originally appeared at Rob Morse’s Slow Facts blog and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Ah, yes.

    Shitcago, Land of Shitbama.

    And the Daley’s weren’t any better.

    Corruption at its finest.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      And what has Obama done for Chicago lately? He used them to rocket him up the ranks. Once he made it, he was like so long suckas!

  2. avatar Greg says:

    Everyday I’m thankful that I got my family the hell out of there.

    1. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

      I’ve been gone for 25 years and I too am glad every time I hear something from there.

      The stupidity and lack of freedom for the citizenry is truly mind boggling to me.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Just as POTG can say gun control laws are useless because crimes are still committed by persons wielding a firearm, the opposition can legitimately claim that without gun control laws, the deaths and injuries would be higher. This is all a loser’s game. Not to mention the similarity to, “So’s your old lady”.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      “…the opposition can legitimately claim that without gun control laws, the deaths and injuries would be higher.”

      No, they can’t.

      Nationwide gun sales have nearly doubled since 1993 and concealed-carry has risen exponentially, while violent crime has dropped by more than 40% in the same period.

      Unless Chicago is some kind of special place where neither rational laws nor human nature apply, their claim is absolutely, verifiably false.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “No, they can’t.

        Nationwide gun sales have nearly doubled since 1993 and concealed-carry has risen exponentially, while violent crime has dropped by more than 40% in the same period.”

        I understand what you are trying to think, but….

        First, we must separate violent crime from crimes where a gun is used to kill or injure. We may end up with the same comparison (crimes with gun use and overall decline in same), but the counter is that the gun laws are what is keeping the guns used in crimes declined precisely because gun control works (see NFA and full auto firearms).

        Second, we must admit that there is no direct evidence that proliferation of gun ownership has any effect on reduction in crime (of any kind). People like to say that the correlation is indubitably evidence of not a correlation, but a direct effect. However, that ignores the influence of gun control laws altogether. What evidence do we have that gun control laws are not just as influential in reducing crimes committed with the use of guns? Right; none.

        Third, to know how much each factor in lowered crime rates affected the outcome. And that requires we be able to identify every factor, and discard specious factors. How much is “every”, and how does one know when “every” has been achieved?

        Circling back to the beginning, we have no evidence that any law has reduced, or eliminated, any instance of a crime. Evaluating the effectiveness of any law requires we identify every factor that directly impinges, and know that we have eliminated every factor that does not. Simply put, the claim that gun laws should be repealed because crimes are still committed by people using guns is spurious. The absolute same claim can be made for any crime at all; and for the same reason – no one can determine why an event that didn’t happen, didn’t happen. The absolute best that can be achieved is speculation.

        To equalize gun control laws with another instance of human activity, let’s look at the classic “Prove you didn’t receive a specific phone call”. and that is why you cannot prove your innocence”. (admittedly it is just an intellectual game). Besides your statement that you did not receive a specific phone call, what would you use to prove it? Which events/circumstances would you cite as evidence the call never reached you, and which events/circumstances would you eliminate as possible proofs that you did receive the call? Bat it back and forth awhile. The exercise results in the same difficulty as proving that only the existence of a law deterred a crime.

        Point being, claiming gun control laws are invalid, useless because crimes are still committed by people using guns is no different than saying that laws against murder are invalid, useless because murders have not been eliminated as a result of the law.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          Sorry, too much to read. I think, maybe, you were on to something but, please, be concise. Thank you. P. S. This goes for EVERYbody.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sorry, too much to read. I think, maybe, you were on to something but, please, be concise.”

          Understand your hope. Some subjects and analyses don’t lend themselves to a few lines. In this case, it was necessary to walk through, step-by-step why the phenomenon of declining crime rates and rising gun ownership cannot legitimately be declared actual “cause-and-effect”. And why we should stop trying to make it so

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Sam, I think we both know that the “gun control works” arguments you’ve brought up are devoid of any proof or logic. The problem is that no application of proof or logic can kill them (and neither can our own similarly shaky claims, no matter how well presented). They’re immortal and immune to injury.

          More guns = more gun violence. This is what we’re always told, and if guns themselves really are the problem, that statement should hold true. But the simple, objective, verifiable reality in background checks and FBI crime statistics shows that such is not the case.

          No, we can’t prove that the increase in guns made people safer — but we don’t have to. That wasn’t even the question. The simple truth is that guns are not the problem. If they were, more guns would inevitably mean more violence; instead, the opposite has happened.

          Sometimes the answer really is that simple.

          We know that the decline didn’t happen because anybody got guns “off the streets” and out of American homes. But why *did* it happen? That ain’t simple and may never be answered.

          What the heck WAS it that started happening in the early 1990s and drove that huge turnaround?

          Was it gun ownership and increased freedom to carry that made everyone safer? Maybe. Mass incarceration via the Clinton-era “tough on crime” laws? Maybe. Getting lead out of paint and gasoline and the atmosphere? Maybe. Roe v. Wade allowing people to abort unwanted children who otherwise would’ve been criminals? Maybe. The Brady Bill’s NICS background checks? Maybe. The Baby Boomers hitting middle age and their shithead Gen X children finally getting jobs? Maybe.

          The answer to any or all could be yes…or no.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We are in agreement, although not about the same thing.

          My point is that claiming more guns equals less violence (declining violent crime simultaneous with increased gun sales) is not a valid, logical, or winning argument…and should be abandoned as rhetoric. Just as we cannot legitimately argue that background checks do not deter crimes. Nor can we boast that gun controls don’t work just because crimes by people using guns still happens. The arguments are just preaching to the choir, expending energy, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

          And finally, we cannot claim gun control laws do not prevent any crime because the NFA effectively eliminated crimes committed by someone using a machine gun. All we manage is to emulate the gun grabbers stridently shouting falsehoods of their own. Time to move beyond tired sloganeering impressing no one of significance.

        5. avatar Dani in WA says:

          Although there has been an historic reduction in violent crime in the U.S. that coincides with the increase in relative gun ownership we cannot conclude a causational relationship.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Although there has been an historic reduction in violent crime in the U.S. that coincides with the increase in relative gun ownership we cannot conclude a causational relationship.”

          Precisely. Claiming so does nothing to support calls for repealing certain gun control laws.

        7. avatar Dani in WA says:

          But, that does not matter in terms of constitutional law.
          We the people have declared a bunch of stuff which comprises “constitutional law”.
          We the people don’t give a load of dingo’s kidneys about your interpretation when you start *ahem* messing with our *ahem* stuff.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But, that does not matter in terms of constitutional law.
          We the people have declared a bunch of stuff which comprises “constitutional law”.
          We the people don’t give a load of dingo’s kidneys about your interpretation when you start *ahem* messing with our *ahem* stuff.”

          Not quite following the thread of the comment.

        9. avatar Ron says:

          The next time an armed criminal tries to rob you, please read your post to him as your defense. Do not pull out a gun, just read to him.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The next time an armed criminal tries to rob you, please read your post to him as your defense. Do not pull out a gun, just read to him.”

          OK; here we go (TL:DR)

          The matter at issue is not armed self-defense. Once an armed criminal tries to rob me, a violent crime is in progress (so much for more guns deterring criminals). The issue is whether there is a direct cause-and-effect between the number of guns held by legal gun owners, and a reduction in violent crime overall. Once that attacker begins, that crime was not deterred by the number of guns held by the public. Summary: Continuing to claim that somehow only the increasing number of guns sold is responsible for the general decline in violent crime make us look silly. Just as does claiming that no crime is prevented by gun control laws. Time we dropped these memes and moved onto something we can actually prove. (Not that real proof affects gun-grabbers at all)

        11. avatar CarlosT says:

          Sam, you’re decent at making “devil’s advocate” arguments, so then take the next step. What are the effective arguments? Or is it your position gun rights simply do not have effective arguments?

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Or is it your position gun rights simply do not have effective arguments?”

          Not at all. My point is we mimic the gun grabbers by continuing to make unprovable pronouncements, while feeling smugly superior to our enemy – gun grabbers.

          If all we have to defend the Second Amendment is slinging invalid arguments, we are hopelessly lost. Diminishing those losing memes, and encouraging innovative thinking to find the emotion-based propositions that can win us converts is where we need to be. The only difference between a rut and a grave is the dimensions. We are spinning our intellectual and political wheels. In order to move ahead, we need to put the past aside. Time to move on to more effective messaging. (No, I don’t have the answers, but crowd-sourcing the search for better arguments should turn something up we can really stand behind and promote).

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Utter nonsense. The ownership of firearms has more than doubled in the last 20 to 30 years, yet all forms of violent crime have plummeted. If guns were the cause the bodies would be piled at the curbside for pickup.

      Parts of the USA with many more guns than Chicago, and Constitutional Carry, have not experienced any rise in violence.

      There is something terribly wrong with Chicago, and other violence-prone places.

      Oh! Maybe there’s a clue there? “VIOLENCE”, a thing that a PERSON DOES!?

      A PERSON? A person does the violence? Maybe it isn’t the tool but the person using the tool?

      Think maybe it’d help if you looked into your “Violent Person Problem”?

      See, now you do not need to get a clue, I just gave you one. No need to thank me, I’m here to help 🙂

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The ownership of firearms has more than doubled in the last 20 to 30 years, yet all forms of violent crime have plummeted. If guns were the cause the bodies would be piled at the curbside for pickup.”

        Utterly false premise.

        First, you must accept as inevitable that proliferation of gun ownership MUST result in higher body count. That is required in order to prove that the opposite is actuality.

        Second, you must single out proliferation of gun ownership as either the single factor in increased body count, or at the overwhelmingly majority factor. Not possible.

        Third, you must prove that without gun control laws, even more guns would be introduced into private ownership.

        Fourth, you must prove that without gun control laws, use of guns to commit crimes would either be ever lower, or at least never rise above the current level.

        Fifth, since violent crime (which I must assume includes, but is not restricted to, crimes committed by someone holding a gun) is on a downward trend, one must be able to indisputably prove that none of the reduction can be ascribed to the existence of gun control laws.

        Trying to use correlation as causation is intellectually dishonest, and buys the pro-gun segment of society nothing politically (which is the only arena that counts). If the “correlation equals causation” meme were effective, we would not in need of using it. However….

        I will give you one example where “correlation equals causation” is actually true/valid: Over the same time that private ownership of guns has increased dramatically, I have become older, fatter and shorter. Therefore, I have a vested interested in supporting gun confiscation.

        1. avatar Jerry says:

          Sam i am another brain dead idiot

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam i am another brain dead idiot…”

          Always enjoy the intellectual stimulus provided by some people here.

          What’s the problem? Too many sill lobb ulls?

        3. avatar LazrBeam says:

          No, Sam, you bored him to death with too much verbosity. Be concise. That’s twice.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Understand your hope. Some subjects and analyses don’t lend themselves to a few lines. In this case, it was necessary to walk through, step-by-step why the phenomenon of declining crime rates and rising gun ownership cannot legitimately be declared actual “cause-and-effect”. And why we should stop trying to make it so.”

        5. avatar Ing says:

          “First, you must accept as inevitable that proliferation of gun ownership MUST result in higher body count.”

          Sam, this is precisely what we are always told we MUST accept. It’s an unsupportable claim that refuses to die.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Indeed. But the standard applies left and right.

        7. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          “Be concise. That’s twice.”

          Or what? You’ll leave in a snit?

          You won’t be missed, I assure you.

          Sam does verbose, it’s how he rolls. Don’t blame him for your inability to keep up.

          Bye… 😉

        8. avatar Dani in WA says:

          You became shorter? Quid pro quo I have become taller by almost 1cm in the past 19 days. Still gathering data…

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I have become taller by almost 1cm taller in the past 19 days”

          I hate all that metric stuff. Feet and inches were good enough for the founders. Why can’t the rest of the world just get with the program?

        10. avatar Dani in WA says:

          @Geoff, when someone says “tl:dr” that’s my cue to read twice, perhaps thrice.

        11. avatar CarlosT says:

          Okay, Sam, so lay out the correct argument to make. Note that in most scenarios, making the argument concisely is paramount, because just looking down our noses at people for not following along isn’t going to convince anyone.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Okay, Sam, so lay out the correct argument to make. Note that in most scenarios, making the argument concisely is paramount, because just looking down our noses at people for not following along isn’t going to convince anyone.”

          Challenging people to get out of a rut of unsupportable claims does not constitute “looking down” one’s nose at anyone.

          If we don’t abandon what doesn’t work, where will we get the bandwidth to search for more effective tactics?

          No, I don’t have solutions, but if we don’t stop spinning our wheels with what has had not been effective to date, where do we get the bandwidth to explore alternatives?

          (I have to stop here in order to be “concise”, regardless of the complexity of the subject)

        13. avatar CarlosT says:

          Thanks, Sam. It’s “looking down” on people to condescend to them because they don’t want to read a dissertation in the comments section of a blog. And, yes, that was the perfect place to stop. Make a point, forward the discussion, then call it good.

          As for that point, I think it would be more useful if you could at least point toward a direction of what would or could work. Otherwise, it just sounds like pointless griping. What rhetorical strategies would be convincing, in your opinion?

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thanks, Sam. It’s “looking down” on people to condescend to them because they don’t want to read a dissertation in the comments section of a blog. “What rhetorical strategies would be convincing, in your opinion?””

          I look down on no one, but often challenge group think, sloganeering and chest-thumping. Encouraging others to move out of fossilized ruts, and actively defend and extend the Second Amendment. My dissertations are designed to provoke alternate thinking and/or educate other who may be unfamiliar with not only current conditions, but the history of what was, and how we got where we are today.

          My salesman training instructor noted, “People are not moved by the height of your logic, but the depth of your emotion.” In essence, he declared that “selling” is not an education process, but a tug at the heart strings to motivate people to action.

          Have long thought that we are not developing strong emotional arguments to motivate the bulk of the voting public to either do nothing to inhibit our right to armed self-defense (or effectiveness as militia), or at least defend those who legally arm themselves, and cause no harm to any other law-abiding person. But then…

          I realized we are maybe too full of ourselves, believing that if gun grabbers are too stupid to understand facts, data and statistics, the hell with them. Maybe we need to spend time investigating how to effectively use Alinsky against his acolytes. With a change in tactics, perhaps new ideas of appealing to anti-gunners (or perhaps crushing them at the ballot box) will arise.

          More importantly, given the poor showings at rallies of support for the Second Amendment, it appears we need first to move ourselves, and our natural allies, beyond the comfort zones. And for that, I am unable to find an emotional appeal that will raise attendance at pro-2A rallies to the level Trump can obtain for transitory purposes.

          Sorry….you asked.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Follow-up:

          Interesting you posed your question today. Seems other pro-gun voices are having a problem with messaging, also. Over at Bearing Arms, Cam Edwards discusses the need to not insult people with our pro-gun conversations. Edwards recommends avoiding educating non-gun owners with reviews of history, or quotations from the founders (because, essentially, people don’t care about history).

          Also recommended for avoidance are calls regarding “RTKBA”, “Shall Not Be Infringed” because too many people do not care that gun possession is a “right”. One recommendation was to “appeal to conscience, based on what gun control laws do to women, the elderly, minorities, and others.” Cam did not give examples of such appeals.

  4. avatar Dave G. says:

    Rob Morse:
    You’re preaching to the choir, and it isn’t doing any good. You’re wasting your time.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Sometimes the choir needs a sermon, too. Besides, the choir is a great source of additional evangelists (being in the choir, they’re only one small step away from preaching already).

  5. avatar Hannibal says:

    There are plenty of defensive gun uses in Chicago since it was made easier to get licenses a few years ago. It’s nothing at all like someplace like MD, NJ or NYC where it is impossible to do. And NYC has a much, much lower homicide rate. There are huge assumptions being made in the article as well, one of the biggest being that loosening gun laws to those of other states would somehow cause (legal) carry rates to be the same. Culture is a huge factor. Similarly dubious is the idea is that the 2700 victims of violence were all disarmed by those laws. This ignores the major patterns of violence in Chicago, the main one being how many of the homicide victims would be prohibited persons anyway due to criminal histories.

    The dirty little secret on this topic is that gun laws have almost no effect on homicide rates because those rates are heavily made up of gang violence that is not impacted either way by the laws.

    Trying to argue for less or more gun control based on homicide statistics is not really effective because it’s impossible to eliminate other variables. The best way to do this would be to try and examine whether rates go up or down in the same location after laws change. For example, homicide rates in Chicago have gone UP since more and more people have been granted carry licenses (the peak being in 2016 but it’s still high). Is that because licensed carriers are murdering people? No, there are external factors, but I can’t help but notice that this article, like almost all those that try and massage statistics, fails to mention those that would discredit its argument.

    Nobody cares about statistics anyway. The question is, if someone is breaking into your home do you feel comfortable waiting 15-20 minutes for the police to arrive or do you think you should have a way to defend yourself? I believe in the fire department too but I keep an extinguisher in the kitchen.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Great comparison. Tell the anti-gun friends: “Why do you have a fire extinguisher? Just call 911 and wait outside.”

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Excellent critique.

      There is another point to be made.

      Suppose, to frame my argument, that ALL those people who died in a homicide were either prohibited-persons, under age to get a permit, or otherwise not qualified. AND, suppose those – a much larger number – of the eligible who actually got permits and carried ALL lived in gated communities and commuted to safe workplaces.

      Under the supposed circumstances, the number of homicides would NOT drop even as the number of permit holders rose rapidly.

      My suppositions are, of course, implausible. Some 5 – 10 – 15% of homicide victims are of-age and otherwise eligible to obtain a permit. But of these future victims in years to come, we would be lucky if half actually applied, were issued the permit, and then consistently carried. Maybe we would see a 2.5 – 5 – 7.5% drop in the homicide rate due to a huge increase in carry permits.

      Would such a drop in homicide rates influence public opinion? Probably not. Moreover, the fluctuation in homicide rates year to year are due to lots of other factors would blur the evidence we anticipate.

      We might see a more noticeable drop in armed robbery, aggravated assault and rape. Here, the affected population of victims is enormously larger than homicide victims. We would stand a better chance of noticing a change. Yet it would still be difficult to confirm that it was the number of permit holders that was the driving force (as you rightly pointed out).

      As much as I’m interested in statistics personally, I’m afraid that most of the fight must be made on the grounds of principle. Does a defenseless woman, elderly man, handicapped person, most men who are not martial arts experts, have a right to the means of an effective defense of self?

      Or, do only men-of-means, police and politicians have that right? Just how rich do you have to be to get a carry permit? A billionaire? What of the ordinary millionaire? What of Jack/Jill Sixpack? What of the single mother whose limited means trap her in the inner-city ghetto?

      Is Dial-a-Prayer our only answer for such a victim?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Birh hannibal ams markpa made excellent points about the statistic analysis of the data and events. It shows figures can be used whichever way someone wants to suit a cause.

  6. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Even if you could prove this mathematically it wouldn’t matter. They want your kind defenseless. Plus, it’s about the feels anyway.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Correct. Everything is a means to an end. We haven’t seen what will happen if they manage to outlaw the possession of all firearms without any legal means to possess guns.

      History tells us what happens next.

  7. avatar David Deplorable says:

    Nice job Rob Morse. Nice job. Ignore the naysayers.

  8. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Rob, you’ve pretty much summed it up. Someone else said it (comments in the school shooting article): It’s not the conceal-carry guy that’s shooting up the schools, malls, theaters.
    Like the global warming alarmists, if they’re really serious about “the Problem”, they wouldn’t fly private jets to Davos, or to any eco/green meeting. They’d teleconference.
    If Chicago is serious about ending the violence, and they know who the dealers/sellers/users are. Nab them, prosecute them.
    Think “follow the money…follow the money….follow the money…” It’s not rocket science.

  9. avatar NORDNEG says:

    13%ers do 80% of the dirty deeds,,,
    You figure it out,,,
    Liberals don’t count gangs as terrorists,
    But of course the N R A is the prob,, right?🖕🏿

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “But of course the N R A is the prob,, right?”

      Well…yeah.

      Duh.

      Every gang member and terrorist is a card-carrying member of the NRA. It’s a well known fact; settled science.

      1. avatar Jerry says:

        Only in your pus filled mind

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Only in your pus filled mind…”

          Reelin’ in the steers.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Jerry failed the sarcasm test.

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The 2A has nothing to do with self defense unless that self defense is aimed at a government that is described thusly:

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    **************************************************

    The politicians and others in power in Chicago and elsewhere know this. They also know that if we run out of ordinary criminals, they are likely the next target of our wrath. They NEED bad guys to justify their existence, and to justify the abuses and usurpation’s of our rights.

  11. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    When debating firearms and violence in Illinois, you cannot mention gangs as an issue. Doing so will have people call you a racist and claim you are using dog whistles. I have found that to be true on many occasions with people I had considered to be more intelligent than using race cards.

    Illinois will have legal marijuana in 2020, and some proponents say drug violence will be reduced because the drug dealers will be competing with the legalized market. They “forget” the litany of other drugs that create a higher profit margin for these gangs.

    Concealed carry did not cause an increase in Chicago crime, the lack of judicial action has done that. Catch and release is a conservation practice in fishing, not a judicial philosophy.

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      But, catch and release is not just a conservation practice in fishing, it is a judicial philosophy aimed towards political conservation. Without armed criminals on the street even the most ardent leftist member of the public would soon lose interest in “gun control” and go back to “healthcare control” or any of many pet issues. These politicians depend on maintaining a critical mass of armed and dangerous criminals on the street and out of prison in order to further their agenda of civil disarmament.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Legal weed has not decreased crime anywhere it has been tried. It has only led to more homelessness and petty criminals that decrease the quality of life. And it hasn’t cut criminals out of the business either. The cartels just buy out the local domestic producers.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Legal booze has not decreased crime anywhere it has been tried. It has only led to more homelessness and petty criminals that decrease the quality of life. Right?

    3. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

      “…some proponents say drug violence will be reduced because the drug dealers will be competing with the legalized market.”

      In their greed, the local governments tax the legal stuff so high, buyers would be fools not to save money by buying from the usual illicit channels…

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Bingo. The thirst to profit from pot leaves a black market in place. They haven’t found a way to identify legal MJ from homegrown.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Ignored(pathetically) is things ARE changing in ILLinois & Chiraq. Defensive gun use is reported POSITIVELY on the local corrupt media. Concealed carry is not considered an aberration. Before it became law over 5 years all the talk was ” blood & gunfights” in the street and local “news” had editorials opposing it. Hey in my burb a dumbazz woman called the po-leece on a fed open carrying(with a visable badge!). She’d faint dead away in nearby Indiana. I guess normalizing CC is a good thing. Honestly “poor” folks somehow can afford a giant tv,an Iphone and spending $500 on braids. Or partying. Or whatever. ILL sux but there are far worse “no carry” states…

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Yes the “poor” Americans have an astonishingly high standard of living these days. They also seem to be well fed.

  13. avatar captainlouisrenault says:

    “Judge for yourself. We know that violent gangs in Chicago already smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants around the globe and across our borders. Politicians claim that new ink on paper will stop the gangs from smuggling the next a pound of steel, lead and gunpowder. That hasn’t worked so far.”

    THE REAL FACTS ABOUT IMMIGRANT CRIME.

    The overwhelming desire of he majority of Americans that want Universal Background Checks is exactly why this will be a major issue in the 2020 elections make no mistake about this and Republicans and Democrats alike know it.

    “It’s all enforcement-only, following the rhetoric of Trump that he used in the campaign and continues to use, making immigrants at fault for everything, from crime to the economy,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.).

    But the two studies don’t point to immigrants posing more of a threat of crime than citizens born in the U.S.

    Among people aged 18-54, 1.53 percent of natives are incarcerated, as are 0.85 percent of undocumented immigrants and 0.47 percent of documented immigrants, according to the Cato study of comparative incarceration rates.

    The Cato study found that there are about 2 million U.S-born citizens, 123,000 undocumented immigrants and 64,000 documented foreign citizens in U.S. jails.

    “These gun-prohibitionists claim that the problem isn’t really about Chicago. The city is an unfortunate victim of lax gun laws in other states. That is like claiming that the drug problem in Chicago is really the problem of lax drug laws in Columbia and China.”

    THE AUTHOR IS FLAT OUT WRONG.. That statement would only fool the mentally retarded not any clear thinking and unbiased person willing to research the real facts . The thousands of State Laws are meaningless because Police tracings of guns show that is exactly why our large cities are awash in gun violence. The weapons used in crimes are indeed traced to the flow of guns from other States with lax laws. Other studies made in Chicago also found many guns were at least 11 years old and had been through many hands with no vetting of such purchases allowing any criminal or mentally ill person to get one.

    Pew Research Center (March 2017): “Please indicate whether you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” Favor or strongly favor: 84 percent.

    CNN/ORC (June 2016): “Would you generally favor or oppose a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony?” Favor: 92 percent.

    We’ll also note that in July 2016, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said: “Ninety percent of Americans want our background check system strengthened and expanded to cover more gun sales.” PolitiFact National’s rating was True which stated the majority of American want universal back ground checks for all gun sales.

    You may not be surprised to learn that US gun deaths climbed to a record in 2017.

    What might surprise you is that the large majority of those fatalities occurred when someone turned the gun on themselves.

    Firearms were used to kill 39,773 people last year, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which has tracked those deaths since 1979. That compares with 28,663 in 2000.

    Suicide by shooting accounted for 60% of the total, and that’s on the rise too, increasing to almost 24,000 people. Homicides were 15,909 (2017)

    Studies have shown that approximately 90% of people who attempt suicide with a gun will die. In contrast, over 90% of those who attempt suicide by other methods will live, and they are unlikely to attempt suicide again. Many child and teenage suicides with guns would be prevented if guns were locked up in the home.

    1. avatar swampcat says:

      Captain Louis makes some good points as both the Democrats and the Republicans both know that Universal Background Checks will be a major issue in the 2020 Presidential Elections and to claim that only the Democrats will support this is to ignore what some Republicans are going to do to get re-elected and it will not be to oppose Universal Background Checks.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      It’s Vlad Tepes aka Wolftracker.

      So tell me are you ok with Physician Assisted Suicide?

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      I don’t give a shit about all that.
      I don’t break laws, I am responsible with my guns and they are always secured.
      All your fluff does is try to justify disarming us, so go pound sand.

    4. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Brevity. Practice brevity.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Brevity. Practice brevity.”

        Repeating slogans, and proclaiming RTKBA is not conversation, debate, or illumination. This is not a forum just for banners and bumper stickers.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Nor is engaging with a known troll who has returned under a new name.

      2. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

        “Brevity. Practice brevity.”

        Or you will do what, exactly?

        Clue -You’re not impressing anyone, son… 😉

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Tune out. Scroll down. Ignore the posts when they see his name. “Oh, it’s Sam again, blathering on…”

          Verbosity really only proves you can type. Even if you have good points, learn how to make them crisply, or they’ll get lost. It takes more effort, but it’s also much more effective.

    5. avatar Someone says:

      Leftist claims of public support for unconstitutional legislation means nothing. If mass media spent as much time and effort propagating shaving all men’s heads and painting them all blue, as they do for gun control and especially UBCs, the CNN polls would show 90 percent support for #commonsense cerulean domes. For the children.

      “The thousands of State Laws are meaningless because Police tracings of guns show that is exactly why our large cities are awash in gun violence. The weapons used in crimes are indeed traced to the flow of guns from other States with lax laws.”

      Okay, froggie vampire, riddle me this then. If lax gun control laws are the problem, why the ‘States with lax laws’ don’t have crime rates worse than Chicago or Baltimore? After all, they are awash with firearms and nobody needs to bring the guns in. But the PEOPLE who live there don’t kill each other wholesale. Unlike the PEOPLE in those Democrat controlled heavens. It’s almost as if the guns and gun control laws differences are not the main reason. More like the difference is more human.

      Now, if someone wants to commit suicide and really means it, he uses a way that’s almost guaranteed to work. Like a bullet though the brain or lenght of rope around the neck. If someone wants to call attention to themselves and don’t really want to die, she (yes, it’s usually she) swallows some pills and calls 911. That explains the success rate difference between gun suicides and those by other means.
      I say if you want to end it all, more power to you, as long as you don’t leave too much mess behind. I vote for a tree in the woods and a noose for two reasons. 1. The wildlife cleans the mess and gets some nutrition and 2. The gun grabbing vultures like froggie Vlad can’t misuse your death to push for public disarmament.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    Ask someone from China how their government handles drug dealers, murderers, bank robbers and other miscreants.

    Hint, they don’t reoffend.

  15. avatar Jbw says:

    The Chicago politicians do nothing to the gangs. The gangs help them get elected. They blame no jobs, lack of opportunities, but have allowed neighborhoods to become shooting galleries. No one is going to open a business in those areas no one is that dumb.

  16. avatar Jerry says:

    Not enough career politicians are.being killed and why not they’re killing us

  17. avatar RAZE says:

    DO NOT GET A CCW IN ILLINOIS.

    It costs about $450 for a CCW in Illinois by the time you pay for the 16 hours of required training. I paid $225 for my 2 day class. It has since come down to $175 last time I checked. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR WHEN IT COMES TO REQUIRED HOURS. CHEAP CLASSES TAUGHT BY COPS ARE NOT GOOD CLASSES TO TAKE. MANY COPS DO NOT KNOW THE LAW. $150 for the permit fee. Cost for range time for performance proficiency qualification and cost for fingerprints, etc.

    PLUS, you put a target on your back with a CCW. Get into an argument with someone? Get ready to get red flagged. Then you have to explain to a judge that the other guy started the fight and that you DID NOT threaten them… That will cost you more time and money. Not worth it. TOTALLY NOT WORTH IT.

    As this article suggests, I got a permit to protect myself and was really disappointed that I felt like it had gotten to the point where I had to do that. I had FOID for many years and never felt like I had to carry a gun in Illinois. The crime is no longer isolated in bad neighborhoods. There are no more ‘good’ neighborhoods in Chicago. I got into an argument with someone shortly after I got my CCW. They have a friend who is a cop who told them I had a carry permit. He must have looked this up. They filed false police reports claiming I had threatened them – using my carry permit against me. No threats were made, no gun was ever present. I had to hire a lawyer (who was useless) etc. I got red flagged for nothing. Their false police reports required no proof. A letter showed up in the mail saying that if I did not surrender my legally owned guns and permits (FOID AND CCW) that a warrant could be issued for my arrest.

    THEY WANT TO TURN YOU INTO A CRIMINAL AND LET THE REAL CRIMINALS OFF THE HOOK.

    I respect the law and law enforcement. Now, the new up and comers (cops) are idiots. They have gone through bias training and see ‘through the lens’ of social justice and bad criminal = victim while law abiding citizen with legally owned gun = bad guy. MOVE OUT OF THAT STATE. Chicago is imploding on itself.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Registration of the person and firearms makes it very easy to persecute , doesn’t it?
      Ask someone in favor of registration schemes how that solves or prevents crime by known or unknown criminals. You’ll see that dazed look .

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The lesson learned here is that if your state has a red flag law and you get into an argument with a neighbor be the first one to call the cops. Hit him with the red flag.

  18. avatar James W Crawford says:

    Let us not ignore the abysmally low crime clearance and arrest rates in Chicago. Based on recent statistics, criminals have a 90% chance of literally getting away with murder. The corollary of the adage “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime, ” is “if you will not have to do the time, why not do the crime.”. By allowing the vast majority of murders to remain unsolved and most of the arrested suspects to evade conviction and serious consequences, Chicago politicians have declared open season on their citizens.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email