Chicago gun ban struck down! (Geneva: how much, school, living in)

[brien51]

Originally Posted by eevee

and I ask again, can that statistic be directly contributed to the revoked gun ban, and if so, will the rate be upheld over time? I still see no real stats showing how the revoked gun ban directly contributed to the lowered rate. keep looking, I'd be interested to read such a report

What would you attribute the lowered death rate to in DC after the lifting of the gun ban? Fairy dust? To write there is no correlation is a cop out. Why don 't you show us the death rates attributed to guns BEFORE the gun ban was lifted?

When gun bans are lifted as in DC, it is a proven fact that murder rates go down. Since most murders are committed by hand guns what would your conclusion be?


Firearms and Crime - Murder

Murders, Weapons, and Circumstances

The murder rate rose dramatically in the late 1980s, largely due to a rise in the number of teenagers—especially African-American males—who were involved as both victims and perpetrators. There are a number of theories as to why this was so, including poverty; a rise in youth gangs; the crack cocaine trade; a thriving black market (illegal trade) for handguns; and exposure to violent images on television, movies, video games, and popular music. MOD CUT

Figure 5.1 shows trends in homicides according to weapon type from 1976 to 2000. Handguns were the weapons most often used, and like the overall homicide rate, incidents involving handguns increased beginning in the mid-1980s. Table 5.1 shows data for 14,054 of the 16,204 murders committed in 2002. MOD CUT

Read more: Firearms and Crime - Murder Firearms and Crime - Murder

[slow_nerve_action]

Originally Posted by smoking357

The average gun owner is a pretty decent person. These decent people will not live in Chicago. Chicago has lots of areas that are blighted, and Chicago has lots of horrible people who believe in big government and high taxes. Gun owners, generally, are far more decent than to steal from their neighbor through crime or taxation. Chicago can start attracting decent people back to it if Daley will get out of the way.

Wow.

Its that kind of broad paintbrush and de-humanizing done by both sides of the political debate that has left this country in such a mess.

I can "vote for higher taxes", because frankly, I live in the part of the country that produces goods, services, and hance the revenues. I don't necessarily believe in higher taxes. I believe in low taxation, and the government needs to run itself much more efficiently.


Check the fiscal math. Blue states produce revenues, and its red states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, that are net recipients of welfare. So, they are in effect, stealing from me through higher taxation. But, these states have higher rates of gun ownership than Illinois.

Quite a paradox.

[brien51]

Originally Posted by smoking357

The murder rate I'm most interested in is mine. My .357 keeps my murder rate quite low, and I intend to keep it that way.

Well said. I have double indemnity; .380 AMI and a .38 Colt Police Positive.

[brien51]

Originally Posted by slow_nerve_action

Who can argue with such a politically unbiased source?

One could also point to at the time, the DC police force received a large funding increase to hire/staff the homicide department, and use better technology. Their closure rates on cases increased from 55% to 75%.

Murders were down 25% that year, but violent crime was only down 4%. If the theory that more armed citizens would result in less crime, wouldn't the decrease in murder rates and violent crime rates be more similar?

A tired old tactic to attack sources when one has nothing of positive addition to a debate. When the majority of the murders are committed by handguns, and the murder rate declines 25%, then what would an intelligent person conclude since most murders are commited by handguns? A sudden proliferation of murders by poison, by knifing, or by scaring someone to death?

The gun restricting advocates just won't accept the facts when presented to them because they can't admit they may be on the wrong side of the issue. In Switzerland, where every household is forced tohave a gun, crime rates are exceedingly low:


Guns, Crime, and the Swiss - by Stephen P. Halbrook

[SIZE=-1]The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.[/SIZE]


Besides the militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely used in violent crime




Firearms and Crime - Murder

Murders, Weapons, and Circumstances

The murder rate rose dramatically in the late 1980s, largely due to a rise in the number of teenagers—especially African-American males—who were involved as both victims and perpetrators. There are a number of theories as to why this was so, including poverty; a rise in youth gangs; the crack cocaine trade; a thriving black market (illegal trade) for handguns; and exposure to violent images on television, movies, video games, and popular music. The murder rate fell in 1998 to its lowest rate in three decades. In 2002 the estimated number of murders committed in the United States was 16,204, up 1% from the previous year but down 33.9% from 1993. This means that there were an estimated 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants.
Figure 5.1 shows trends in homicides according to weapon type from 1976 to 2000. Handguns were the weapons most often used, and like the overall homicide rate, incidents involving handguns increased beginning in the mid-1980s. Table 5.1 shows data for 14,054 of the 16,204 murders committed in 2002. Firearms were the weapons most frequently used to commit murders, accounting for approximately six in every ten murders committed in the United States. Handguns were used in 51% of the murders, shotguns were used in 3.3%, and rifles in 3.4%. A knife or other cutting instrument was used in 13% of murders; personal weapons such as fists, hands, or feet in 12.5%; blunt instruments in 4.7%; and other weapons, such as poisons and explosives, in the remainder


Read more: Firearms and Crime - Murder Firearms and Crime - Murder

[Avengerfire]

This thread might as well be moved to the general U.S. forum.

[brien51]

Originally Posted by slow_nerve_action

Who can argue with such a politically unbiased source?


Murders were down 25% that year, but violent crime was only down 4%. If the theory that more armed citizens would result in less crime, wouldn't the decrease in murder rates and violent crime rates be more similar?

DC Murder Rate Lowest in 45 Years (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/dc-murder-rate-lowest-in-45-years-122809 - broken link)


It is because the Polcie Chief has stated they concentrated upon those who were at most risk for violence:

In a one on one interview with Fox 5 Monday, DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said it all has to do with focusing on a small group of violent offenders and working closely with the community.

MOD CUT
"

[hank0604]

Originally Posted by brien51

Here you are:

Vocal Minority: Liberal Lie #16: Less Guns, Less Crime! - D.C. Murder Rate Down 25% After Gun Ban Lifted


January 21, 2010
EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
[color=#800000]More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.]

MOD CUT

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc--After this, therefore because of this.

Just because one thing happens after another, it doesn't mean that the first event caused the second.

For example, you could look at New Orleans. Without taking time to look up facts, I would imagine that stats from 2005 would look pretty odd on paper. I'm sure that all kinds of things went down--crime, teenage pregnancy, high school dropouts, etc. But this wasn't caused by any policy change, it was Hurricane Katrina moving 60% of the people out of the city.

We will not be able to get any real data from D.C. for at least 10 years, so that we have a significant time period to measure the data from.

I have a hard time believing that there are too many criminals out there afraid of committing a crime because the homeowner might be armed. I grew up in Louisiana, where almost every home had a gun (I got my first, a .410 shotgun, when I was 7), and there were still plenty of robberies, assaults, batteries, etc. I've even had a buddy who was carrying and got mugged, resulting in a very beautiful S&W being taken from him.

Crime is a social issue, and will not be caused by removing or providing guns. As Lookout Kid has said, guns don't really sway crime one way or another.

Okay, I'm starting to ramble. In the end, I'm supportive of the SC's decision, because I do believe that it is a fundamental right of Americans to own guns. But let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that we want guns for some higher purpose--we just like guns in this country. We were born of the gun, they are as much a part of our culture as baseball.

[ajolotl]

Studies aside, I think just a little common sense makes it clear that the typical Chicago murder these days has nothing to do with gun laws. There are exceptions, but 95% of the shootings are the typical gang variety. Thus, the crime statistics are very likely to to change much regardless of the law.

That doesn't mean though that a typical law abiding citizen isn't safer with a gun. This probably depends a lot on training and circumstances. Living on the south side, I can certainly understand wanting to carry one.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by smoking357

At an uncertain time prior, the anti-gunners began equating guns with male genitalia.

I really don't care how you chose to label me. Just be aware that as you call me an "anti-gunner," he's a quote from an earlier comment of mine:

Originally Posted by urza216

I don't like guns. [...] However, I fully support an American's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bare arms..

[sandwalk]

Gun ban or not; there will always be reckless people that use firearms for horrendous crimes. So sad.