• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crime plummets in DC and IL after SC rulings

S

spidey07

No Lifer
As predicted, by anybody with a freaking ounce of common sense, when a criminal knows their victim my very well kill them, LEGALY, they may think twice about if their action is really worth death. Yada, fox news, yada, wild west, yada, think of the children, yada, blood in the streets, yada.

Hey criminal! You want to threaten me, my property or my house? I shoot you dead. THAT is the consequence you face, bad guy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/

Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would "go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets . . . ."

The New York Times even editorialized this month about the Supreme Court's "unwise" decision that there is a right for people "to keep guns in the home."

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

Not surprisingly, the national media have been completely silent about this news.

One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen. In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982.
Click to expand...
 
spidey07 said:
As predicted, by anybody with a freaking ounce of common sense, when a criminal knows their victim my very well kill them, LEGALY, they may think twice about if their action is really worth death. Yada, fox news, yada, wild west, yada, think of the children, yada, blood in the streets, yada.

Hey criminal! You want to threaten me, my property or my house? I shoot you dead. THAT is the consequence you face, bad guy.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/30/media-silence-is-deafening-about-important-gun-news/
Click to expand...
Victory!!!
 
This is why violent crime rates are so low in places with lax gun control laws like Texas.

Oh wait.

Why does spidey care? I thought they didn't allow the mentally ill to have firearms, and that would exclude him pretty concretely.
 
eskimospy said:
This is why violent crime rates are so low in places with lax gun control laws like Texas.

Oh wait.
Click to expand...

That's a bogus argument. Correlation does not equal causation, there are lots of other factors that play a role. Comparing, lets say, Wyoming and DC to see how lax regulation vs strict regulation works is dumb because there are major differences not accounted for in the analysis. However, comparing Chicago and DC before the SCOTUS decision and after makes a lot more sense... and the results appear to be pretty conclusive that removing the restrictions either had a positive impact or at least no negative impact as had been predicted.

Has anyone ever been able to show a rise in violent crime linked to loosening of restrictions? Anywhere?
 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
This is why violent crime rates are so low in places with lax gun control laws like Texas.

Oh wait.

Why does spidey care? I thought they didn't allow the mentally ill to have firearms, and that would exclude him pretty concretely.
Click to expand...

Actually if want to go to the opposite extreme, a little place called Kennesaw GA has a mandate that every adult who legally can (and doesn't have a disability or can't afford one) must keep at least one gun and ammunition for it in the house. Their crime rate plummeted as well.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml

But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported.
Click to expand...
 
Double Trouble said:
That's a bogus argument. Correlation does not equal causation, there are lots of other factors that play a role.

The data shows that in Chicago and Washington where they had some of the strictest gun control regs that were essentially tossed by the scotus, the crime rates went down, and they went down quicker than in other places. Causation has not been proven, but in the absence of some other reason for the same big drop in both those cities at the same time, it's fair to assume the removal of the regs had at least some positive impact.
Click to expand...

It's really not fair to assume that at all. As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Not only is the sample size too small to make an actual determination, but we also have no idea if gun buying behavior changed significantly over this time. (they mention more permits in Washington, nothing about Chicago, and we don't know if those permits were registering guns already present, what)

It's just another dumb thread from the resident crazy person on these forums.
 
eskimospy said:
It's really not fair to assume that at all. As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Not only is the sample size too small to make an actual determination, but we also have no idea if gun buying behavior changed significantly over this time. (they mention more permits in Washington, nothing about Chicago, and we don't know if those permits were registering guns already present, what)

It's just another dumb thread from the resident crazy person on these forums.
Click to expand...

I'm no gun nut- in fact I have never even shot a gun before- but are you telling me that if you were a burglar and you found out that gun ownership was just made legal, that you would not have any second thoughts about breaking into people's houses? I know I would. It just seems like common sense to me.
 
eskimospy said:
It's really not fair to assume that at all. As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Not only is the sample size too small to make an actual determination, but we also have no idea if gun buying behavior changed significantly over this time. (they mention more permits in Washington, nothing about Chicago, and we don't know if those permits were registering guns already present, what)

It's just another dumb thread from the resident crazy person on these forums.
Click to expand...

So you'll only accept a logical assumption if it's something you would assume as well. Got it.

Gun freedoms and drops and crime is a proven concept. As opposed to gun freedoms and "wild west gunfights" that the left has predicted since the 80s and have yet to materialize, anywhere, despite the fact that gun laws are in many ways looser than they've ever been. Oh and national crime is dropping to boot.

At the very least, the left has been proven very wrong about the effects of loosening gun control.
 
eskimospy said:
This is why violent crime rates are so low in places with lax gun control laws like Texas.

Oh wait.

Why does spidey care? I thought they didn't allow the mentally ill to have firearms, and that would exclude him pretty concretely.
Click to expand...
Both Vermont and New Hampshire have much more lax gun laws than Texas can dream about.
Gun crime is virtually non-existent in either of those places.

Most of the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws in the country require citizens to first get permits. But in a couple of states, like Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government- imposed waiting period.
Click to expand...
How do you explain that?
 
irishScott said:
So you'll only accept a logical assumption if it's something you would assume as well. Got it.

Gun freedoms and drops and crime is a proven concept. As opposed to gun freedoms and "wild west gunfights" that the left has predicted since the 80s and have yet to materialize, anywhere, despite the fact that gun laws are in many ways looser than they've ever been. Oh and national crime is dropping to boot.

At the very least, the left has been proven very wrong about the effects of loosening gun control.
Click to expand...

Sorry for actually needing evidence, I know that's sort of frowned upon on here. You would be correct that the contention that loosening gun laws would lead to a rise in crime is not supported by this, but the contention that loosening gun laws would lead to a decline in crime is also not sufficiently supported by this info.

National crime has been dropping for about 30 years now, regardless of increasing or decreasing gun control. I am unaware of any credible analysis that ties the loosening of gun laws to this 30 year trend in any significant way.

It's basically some idiot pundit on fox news making an unwarranted assumption that stupid people like spidey drool all over.
 
spittledip said:
I'm no gun nut- in fact I have never even shot a gun before- but are you telling me that if you were a burglar and you found out that gun ownership was just made legal, that you would not have any second thoughts about breaking into people's houses? I know I would. It just seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'd make murdering whoever I was robbing from a top priority, but I'll never be a burglar so it's not like it'd come up.
 
Anyways, I'm not really interested in getting in a big debate about this. If you go look at the research on gun control you'll find that there's a whole lot of conflicting information on the topic. Regardless of how you feel about the issue you should also know well enough to not take a single year in an isolated area and try to draw this type of conclusion with it.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
I'd make murdering whoever I was robbing from a top priority, but I'll never be a burglar so it's not like it'd come up.
Click to expand...

Uh, in the scenario the homeowner you'd be burglarizing would have a gun and would be defending him/herself and possibly their family. It's even possible every adult in the house is armed. You're a burglar looking for easy money. Have fun with the attempted murder...
 
irishScott said:
Uh, in the scenario the homeowner you'd be burglarizing would have a gun and would be defending him/herself and possibly their family. It's even possible every adult in the house is armed. You're a burglar looking for easy money. Have fun with the attempted murder...
Click to expand...

You have the advantage of them not knowing you're coming.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
You have the advantage of them not knowing you're coming.
Click to expand...

Lol. And the burglar is who, Snake? There have been polls of prisoners. The thing they are most scared of is an armed homeowner because an armed homeowner is not subject to procedure and will, when they feel their life and/or family is threatened, kill them without warning.

Burglars are looking for easy money. That's why most robberies take place when no one's home. An expensive TV isn't easy money if the homeowner living with it has a shotgun. You think all robbers are also assassins on the side?
 
irishScott said:
Lol. And the burglar is who, Snake? There have been polls of prisoners. The thing they are most scared of is an armed homeowner because an armed homeowner is not subject to procedure and will, when they feel their life and/or family is threatened, kill them without warning.

Burglars are looking for easy money. That's why most robberies take place when no one's home. An expensive TV isn't easy money if the homeowner living with it has a shotgun. You think all robbers are also assassins on the side?
Click to expand...

You're trying to create this stupid argument where there is none. I was only saying what I would do if I was planning to burglarize someone. Not what the average person is going to do, and yea If I needed money for food I'd be an assassin on the side.
 
irishScott said:
So you'll only accept a logical assumption if it's something you would assume as well. Got it.

Gun freedoms and drops and crime is a proven concept. As opposed to gun freedoms and "wild west gunfights" that the left has predicted since the 80s and have yet to materialize, anywhere, despite the fact that gun laws are in many ways looser than they've ever been. Oh and national crime is dropping to boot.

At the very least, the left has been proven very wrong about the effects of loosening gun control.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a proven concept. I think there are anecdotal examples floating around, showing statistics covering a very narrow time frame and failing to consider any of 20 others factors that can affect crime.

I'm personally against most forms of gun control and pro Second Amendment. I very much doubt that gun control is effective in reducing violent crime. Unfortunately, there are too many cherry picked statistics being bandied about on both sides that I don't think we really have a clear idea. What we do know is that many, many variables affect crime rates and accordingly, whoever is "correct" about the direction that gun control takes crime, it very likely isn't a large factor either way.

IMO gun control is one issue that the left needs to just give up on. The data isn't that persuasive in their favor, may even be against them. Also, it's a Constitutional issue, AND on top of that gun availability is a huge issue for certain highly militant sub-cultures in this country. It just isn't worth it. We are devisive enough already on many issues that matter a lot more than this. And after all, crime has been going down for 20 years in this country. Time to move on.
 
Last edited:
AyashiKaibutsu said:
Maybe poverty rates has much more to do about crime rates than gun laws?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate
Click to expand...
Possibly.
If that's the case, then our politicians clearly shouldn't waste their time with anti-gun OR pro-gun legislation since it clearly has more to do with poverty than actual gun laws.
Leave gun laws completely off the books since they don't affect crime one way or another...

Those who want to own should own one without having to get permission, pay a fee, or follow an imposed waiting period. Those who don't want to shouldn't. Simple.

FYI: I don't own a firearm. Never had one, never used one.

**EDIT**
 
Last edited:
AyashiKaibutsu said:
You're trying to create this stupid argument where there is none. I was only saying what I would do if I was planning to burglarize someone. Not what the average person is going to do, and yea If I needed money for food I'd be an assassin on the side.
Click to expand...

And I'm pointing out how off base you are. You think burglars are robbing places to get money for food? Maybe a few are, but I doubt the majority of, say.. carjackers are stealing SUVs so they can buy Campbells Chicken Noodle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top