More guns less crime? More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens less crime? Maybe gun crime has less to do with guns and more to do with crime. No matter how you slice it, one of America’s most gun control-intensive cities had a shooting-intensive night last night. To wit: “Two people were killed and at least 15 others wounded, including seven teenagers, in shootings across the city Friday night and Saturday morning,” chicagotribune.com reports . . .
Two women were shot in the head in the 2300 block of North Harding Street in the Logan Square neighborhood at about 4:40 a.m. . . . [Louis] Cotto was standing on a corner when shots were fire in a possible drive-by shooting at about 1:20 a.m, police said. He was shot in his chest and back and was pronounced dead at Illinois Masonic Medical Center.
And so on. Keeping in mind that the Census Bureau pegged the 2010 population of Chicago (proper) at 2,695,598, what should be done about the shootings?
As TTAG commentator Phil Mc pointed out in an email, one thing’s fer sure: avoid bopping around Chi town in the wee hours of the morning, when ALL of these ballistic events occurred. As far for the anti-shooting options available to politicians/government/police, well, check the chart at the top of this post.
John “Death by Stats” Lott reckons Chicago’s safer since the Supreme Court pulled the plug on the City’s handgun ban. Given the fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population who’ve jumped the hurdles and bought a legal defensive gun—that they still can’t take out of the house—I reckon that’s a Lott of nonsense.
Other factors are in play. But the question remains: who’s shootings are these anyway? Should the Chicago police change tactics? Does the City need new laws? Less laws? Enforce the old laws? Or should Chicago just live with the gunplay as the price of living in a free society?
Since most of the deceased were shot in the head, I suggest that Chicago outlaw brains. Without a brain, which control stuff like breathing, people would be a lot harder to kill. Plus, the pool of potential Democratic politicians would automatically increase exponentially. Now, the people who were not shot in the head were shot in the heart, so hearts should also be outlawed. Rahm Emanuel is already good to go.
I know! I know! Assign a squad of armed police bodyguards to every resident of Chicago, just like now-retired Chicago Mayor Daley has!! And like current Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has!!!
What’s that? Taxpayer-financed police bodyguards are only for the aristocracy, not for the peasants? Ahhhh – OK, then all of you peasants in Chicago need to stop whining and accept your place as helpless victims. Remember, if Chicago’s anti- self defense laws can save one politician’s life, they are worth it!
What you’re conveniently leaving out of your bleak picture of the Windy City is that every one of those guns started out legally owned by somebody. You keep trying to de-emphasize the part gun availability plays in all this. No one on our side is saying you should only look at the guns and not the criminals, but you seem to be saying the opposite.
How in the hell are all those guns slipping out of hands like yours, Robert and into the criminals’ hands? That’s the question you need to ask. But you don’t like that because the next obvious inference is how can we help you legal gun owners hang onto your guns. You don’t want to go there.
Wow. mikey actually knows where the guns came from. Please share your knowledge with the cops, because they don’t know. I’m sure they will be as thrilled with your help as we are.
BTW, we’re shipping all the guns to you, so that you can then dispense them to whoever you want. That’s the system they have in Chicago and it seems to work just great. Right, mikey?
Really Mike? How do you know they were legally owned by someone? If they weren’t registered with the Police they were illegal guns. If you mean that they were all stolen from legal owners then how would you know that? Drug trafficers also sell other things and guns are way up there on the list.
The fact is that here in Northern Virginia where open carry is legal and CCW permits are easy to get things are a lot safer then they are in Chicago. We have only a hand full of murders every year with about half the population of Chicago. Isn’t ironic that I seldom need to carry a gun in Arlington even though can and that I am less safe in any part of Chicago where I am can’t?
I guess Mikey is saying that these guns are being stolen by criminals from non criminals. Which would again lead me to the theory that the CRIMINALs are the problem.
2nd point. If those legally owned guns were all being carried by the law abiders, then the criminals couldn’t steal them from cars and houses.
So if gun availability is the problem, the lets require every gun owner in Chicago to conceal carry at all times.
You’re right on target xpo, because if some scumbag thief (CRIMINAL) steals my car (I’m the NON-CRIMINAL), then all cars are evil and should be banned. I should be able to leave the keys in my car or leave my front door wide open, and not be blamed for some scumbags actions just because they decided to rob me. These lowlifes should have their hands chopped off and then they would have one hell of a time stealing from innocent people.
Sharia law FTW!!!!!!!11
So, I assume that your solution would be to ban the first purchase of a firearm by a law-abiding citizen, so that it could not be stolen or lost to a criminal. If that approach is implemented, only the government, and the crafty criminals would have guns since they have other sources, like other countries. They get tons of illegal drugs, why don’t you think they would also get military or police arms if they had to.
MikeBbunch of numbers: Here is where I categorically reject you and your EVIL agenda. I do not trust any government that wants to disarm me. No good can ever come from it. Contemplate the Holocaust, Turkey’s killing of the Armenians, massacres in numerous countries in Africa, and all of the communist oppressions (USSR, China, N. Korea) that have relied on gun control and civilian disarmament to commit atrocities that make criminal violence miniscule in comparison. We do care about the latter group, so we want the innocent to have the tools to defend themselves, too. Broad firearm ownership is a wonderful backstop to governmental abuses. You should really read what the Founding Fathers had to say about it, but your ignorance is too great in my opinion.
Hey, don’t you live in Italy, a previous bastion of fascism. Well, it shows. Mind you own damn business.
No, my solution is not to ban anything.
My solution is to license all gun owners and register all guns. That would put an end to straw purchasing overnight.
Safe-storage laws and reporting-theft laws would take a big bite out of theft because you lawful gun owners would be motivated to store your guns better at home.
So, would your license/registration scheme apply to the ATF and FBI?
Based on their activities in providing guns to the Mexican drug cartels, it would be valid under your premises to state that the majority of guns in criminal hands in Chicago were provided by the ATF as a scheme to demonize honest gun owners. Hey, it doesn’t matter if there is PROOF – the allegation is serious enough to develop some good, leftist laws to fix the problem.
How would you like to help? Much like the gun grabber crowd you are more than happy that we have 50 states with 50 different laws who in turn have counties with different laws who in turn have cities whom have different laws and a gun owner in each state must know every law of every state, county or town lest they be arrested for simply driving over the invisible political border. Lets forget about driving across the border because my permit may not be valid in your state although I went through the same background checks and training in most cases. I find it hilarious that in 2017 most states will have to put a gold star on drivers license to allow it to be used for even domestic travel and that telephone bill will be used as one of the proofs for you being a valid resident but a firearm license that requires and FBI and State Police check cannot in many states be used as a valid form of identification to support the new drivers license check — yeah thanks for all the help!
We have states like NY that do not even honor FOPA and in NJ if you simply hand a unloaded gun to person at a gun range to look at whom may not have the correct license you can be arrested. In MA, if you live in Brookline area you vastly different rules than if you go over the border to any neighboring town.
In the meantime, in any news article possible you like to deemphasize the criminal act and emphasize the gun. “Gun Violance” phrasing was not worded in mistake when used by the gun grabbers.
Yes, thank you @mikeb302000 for all the help the gun grabbers have given us pro-gun supporters to “help” us all.
In your own blog entry about “Where do the guns come from?” you like to demphasize that the TSA did not do their job nor did law enforement. The pro-gun movement does not support criminals or criminal behavior but in your view you rather not go after the criminals but you rather go after legal gun owners because they are much easier target. You are happy when everyones rights are taken away versus going after the problems. Your kind of help is to reach out with one hand to make believe to shake hands only to use the other hand to steal our guns. yes, thank you for the help!
It is probably blacks shooting up each other. A good place to check is the Second City Cop blog, but they haven’t posted about it yet. However, considering historical precedent, one is fairly sure of it unless proven otherwise.
In a culture that barely holds an individual responsible who commits a crime what can be done? Historically, In some traditional societies, the immediate family, extended family, or who village was held responsible for the ‘criminal’ behavior — in various degrees — for those who broke the law. After 911, a friend suggested that the families of terrorists be held responsible and executed. Another friend and I responded that his suggestion was extreme and unfair, yet it would probably keep some terrorists from suicide bombing innocent people. I don’t like the idea of punishing innocent people who may well be horrified by the actions of a relative and I am not suggesting collective punishment. Just food for thought.
Legalize the damn drugs. The murder rate would plunge instantly. We Americans are so dumb. Even when reminded of Prohibition, like we were this week, we can’t learn from it.
While I agree in principle history would seem to show that once you create a criminal element they just don’t go away with prohibition. More mobsters were wacked after prohibition then before and during. We have created a criminal enterprise that will continue on long after we legalize drugs.
I think you need to go back and read what Lott wrote, because you missed his point entirely.
He wasn’t trying to credit the availability of handguns with the drop in crime in Chicago. He was pointing out just how wrong all the Chicago politicians were when they ran their mouths after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban.
Every official in Illinois, from Mayor Daley on down, insisted that the McDonald ruling and the availability of legal handguns would cause a nightmarish bloodbath in the city streets. They claimed that the gun ban was reasonable and effective, and that it was the only thing keeping violence in check. Eliminating it, they all said, would produce a terrible spike in violence throughout the city.
Lott is simply pointing out that this did not happen. As always, we need to hold the anti-gun politicians to task for what they say. Crime and violence are still too high in Chicago but getting rid of the misguided handgun ban did not make it any worse, despite the city’s outlandish claims. That was Lott’s reason for citing these statistics together with the statements of elected officials reacting to McDonald and Heller.