How is the gun ban in Chicago doing?

[fskimospy]

For the sake of argument... lets say Chicago had some way to remove 100% of the guns at the city limits and within the city itself. How many murders would think would have occurred

Probably the same number. Instead of guns in would have been knives or other projectile. You can remove the guns but you won't remove the violent tendencies or reasons why these murders are being committed. Drugs users won't just stop using drugs. Gangs won't suddenly be without a reason to defend their turf against rival gangs. Uneducated youth without any semblance of a family structure won't suddenly buckle down and see the errors of their ways. There are reasons for Chicago's murder rate... and it is not simply because people have a gun in their hands.

Your argument seems to be that the ease with which one can commit murder has no effect on the murder rate, but that seems like quite a stretch. Crimes are a function of motive and opportunity, to say that someone with a slingshot and someone with a gun have the same opportunity seems far fetched.

Note: I think chicagos gun laws are bad policy; the arguments being made in this thread are terrible though.

 

[ShawnD1]

Move the goalposts enough and you're bound to kick it through eventually. What is a "viable border" to you?

The US-Canada border seems good enough. Despite being mostly unguarded, Canada doesn't have a whole lot of unregistered guns from the US. It would theoretically be easy to do, but it mostly doesn't happen. Police occasionally make busts where they find a lot of guns, but the guns are mostly used for gang warfare. Every day street thugs don't have guns here, and gangs generally don't attack random innocent people with guns. I'm not saying a border around Chicago would work. This is just an example of a border that is mostly open but still seems to stop a lot of things from moving back and forth.

A lot of Canada's gun laws would probably work well in the US. Getting a gun up here is fairly simple. You take something like 8 hours of training, you take a test, then you send your application to get a license. It's like getting a license to drive, but it involves a background check. 97% of applications are approved. To get a hand gun, you take a bit more training, do another test, get another license. It's like having a license to drive a motorcycle in addition to a license to drive a car. Since guns are registered, there's a good legal incentive to lock your guns. You don't want someone to steal your guns then have police knocking on your door when they find your gun at a crime scene.

Banning guns altogether seems like a step in the wrong direction. It's nice when good people have guns, so your laws should focus on getting guns in the hands of good people and keeping them away from bad people. Do background checks before gun purchases, and all guns should be registered. Requiring registration keeps people accountable so that gun doesn't end up stolen or sold to criminals. With registration and background checks, where do criminals get their guns? Steal them? It's hard to steal them when they are locked in a gun safe. Do they need to smuggle guns from Mexico? This seems like such an easy fix, but it just doesn't happen.

 

[OrByte]

For the sake of argument... lets say Chicago had some way to remove 100% of the guns at the city limits and within the city itself. How many murders would think would have occurred

Probably the same number. Instead of guns in would have been knives or other projectile. You can remove the guns but you won't remove the violent tendencies or reasons why these murders are being committed. Drugs users won't just stop using drugs. Gangs won't suddenly be without a reason to defend their turf against rival gangs. Uneducated youth without any semblance of a family structure won't suddenly buckle down and see the errors of their ways. There are reasons for Chicago's murder rate... and it is not simply because people have a gun in their hands.

And yet somehow gun safety measures/gun bans/gun control laws STILL are being enacted and enforced throughout the country because even though drugs are against the LAW, and violence against individuals/gangs are against the LAW,,and factor in as well all of the social services available to those 'uneducated youth' so should gun laws be a factor too because of a comprehensive attempt to make communities and streets safer.

guns are not 'sacred' even though there is a 2nd amendment to form militias against a tyrannical government bla bla bla bla....guns are not sacred and people are stupid, so there should be a measure of control over which firearms and materials are available for consumer use.


laws, rules, regulations...unfortunately in a society they are just there and you have to deal with it. Thankfully in our country, we have a legit say in how we are governed.

 

[BoberFett]

Silliness. Gun control in small areas without border control works quite poorly because there is basically nothing stopping people from neighboring areas from bringing in weapons.

That of course makes no statement as to if gun control works in a larger sense. Come on guys, if you are going to complain about liberal minded people being illogical about guns you can't turn around and make these ridiculous arguments.

You mean like that great border patrol that will keep illegal immigrants and guns in Mexico? Oh wait, scary black rifles go the other way. From the US government to Mexico.

LOL, Democrats.

 

[ShawnD1]

A few people are comparing guns and drugs.
Drug laws and gun laws are surprisingly easy to compare. You want only good people to have guns, so you try to make laws ensuring that only good people can buy guns via criminal background checks and gun registration. Does the same logic work with drugs like alcohol? Yes it does. We want adults to have alcohol, but we don't want kids to have alcohol. What is the solution? Adults are allowed to buy alcohol while kids are not, and this is enforced just by asking for ID. When it comes to keep alcohol away from kids, this has worked surprisingly well. The people you want to see drunk (adults) have unlimited access to alcohol, but the people you don't want to see drunk (kids) have very limited access. For a lot of high school kids, it's easier to buy MDMA and cocaine than it is to buy alcohol. Shouldn't guns have that same nice success story? The law abiding people who want guns can buy as many guns as they want. The people with criminal records would have a hard time getting guns. Good people are armed while bad people are disarmed. Easy as pie!

Now watch democrats fuck this simple idea up. They'll ban guns across the board so good citizens are completely disarmed and only criminals are armed.

 

[BoberFett]

The Mexican border can't keep people or drugs out, but surely they can stop guns from coming in.

LOL, Democrats.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So if borders don't work, I assume you're in favor of completely dismantling them? Think of the money we'd save.

 

[klinc]

But it will stop people going to buy groceries with a loaded machine gun IMO

 

[BoberFett]

So if borders don't work, I assume you're in favor of completely dismantling them? Think of the money we'd save.

Borders as a filter for physical goods? No, they don't work unless you're willing to do what it takes to make them work. And Americans have proven we don't have that will. Any time the topic of enforcing the southern border comes up certain groups go into tirades about racism and how pointless such ideas are. Ironically, these same people who believe fences and armed guards can't stop millions of people and drug runners from crossing the border, but somehow making guns illegal will magically make them disappear. The logical inconsistency of the left is mind boggling.

 

[waggy]

So if borders don't work, I assume you're in favor of completely dismantling them? Think of the money we'd save.

borders only work if you man them. having a open boarder keeps NOBODY out. just ask arizona how it's working for them.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This is a strawman. Eskimospy and I are not making the argument that a lack of borders is the only reason that Chicago's gun control doesn't work. We're making the argument that it is part of why it doesn't work, and that it is invalid to generalize from a ban that includes no borders to say that because it doesn't work, that this proves a ban WITH borders also doesn't work.

Here you go AGAIN. Its sad that I have to copy/paste what you are so clearly incapable of understanding. Eskimospy most certainly did make the claim (through inferring) that a border good enough would stop gun traffic.

Are you contending that Chicago is not a valid test bed for gun control because of no border control?

Yes. I think you are attempting to say that the US has border control for drugs but since drugs come in that border control doesn't matter. That is not a good argument.

The cost to produce drugs is extremely low, their quality is not dependent on large scale, established facilities, they are easily hidden in transport, etc. To try and compare the two is silliness.

Therefore mr intellectually dishonest he is making the claim that if Chicago had better border control Guns would not make it in and therefore provide for a valid test bed for bleeding liberals. However as has been demonstrated oh so many times in this thread that such a border does not exist and therefore your leftist wet dream of banning guns so everyone can sing kumbaya is nothing short of a pipe dream.

Let's try it a different way.

Suppose the earth has only two continents, called AB and YZ, each of which has two countries. AB is split between A and B, and YZ between Y and Z. There is no way for goods to move between the two continents.

A has strict gun control laws, but B has none. There is a border between A and B, enforced at the same level as the US-Mexico border.

On the other continent, Y has strict gun control laws like A's and Z has none, like B. But there's no border between Y and Z -- people and goods can flow freely between them.

Now, the simple question: which country will have more guns in it, A or Y? Answering that with anything other than "Y" would be, in your words, "stunningly insanely stupid".

If you want to stray away from his argument and make your own so be it. But don't strut in here thinking you know his argument and bust out a kneejerk reaction like they did in Chicago.

And anyone who can't understand this simple analogy needs to go back to high school for remedial logic classes.

Up until this point you've failed to show you can follow along with a basic debate much less "logic".

As an aside, I find it absolutely hilarious to see a bunch of right-wingers using "borders don't matter!" arguments. Aren't you the same folks that want to build a wall along the Rio Grande and deploy troops along all of our borders? Why bother if "borders don't matter"?

People make choices guns don't. Oh wait liberals seem to think they do.

Gee, maybe it's because the truth is that borders are imperfect but do make a difference? Which is exactly the point that eskimospy was making: borders don't stop all gun flow, but they stop it a lot more than no borders, so saying that because Chicago's gun ban doesn't work that a nationwide one wouldn't work is "stunningly insanely stupid". There are valid arguments against nationwide gun bans, but "look at Chicago!" is not one of them.

A difference. You want to make a difference? Hows the difference in Chicago? Has it stopped the killing? Oh but let me guess, if its banned everywhere guns will cease to exist! You wanna talk about logic, you should start practicing it first.

 

[OrByte]

can anyone link the chicago gun laws?

everything I am reading says it is lawful to own guns...it just needs to stay home

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ordinances/chicago.pdf

 

[NoStateofMind]

Are you contending that Chicago is not a valid test bed for gun control because of no border control?

you are applying an impossible standard to gun control laws. (Law should abolish all desired behavior)

The impossible standard is banning all guns but I don't expect you to grasp that as many leftists seem incapable of basic reasoning skills. If you do then you have my apologies. What law(s) would you propose to stop this abhorrent behavior?

yet you don't bother applying the same standard to border control. (Borders should control all desired areas)

Big borders, small borders, incandescent ones too. Provide proof that any border in any time in history kept people from getting what they want. oh okay, well it was pretty rough on those in the concentration camps under Nazi rule. I suppose that would work. Is this your ideal border?

and there is no middle ground to establish that neither laws nor borders are 100% effective...and this is where most reasonable people with critical thinking skills live.

So let me get this right. You think passing another law will reducegun violence. However we have the most stringent laws you could ask for in Chicago by way of an outright ban. Yet you have critical thinking skills? mmmmm not thinking so.

talk about an inability to reason on gun control...

LOL yes as the above proves.

you USED to be a reasonable poster on these forums...I don't know what happened.

Those who choose not to be honest with themselves when shown the error of their thinking I have no use for. Challenging mens minds and not letting them squirm out kinda makes people upset. So you're bound to spill some milk.

edit: borders are not built with giant cement walls and barbed wire on top. Gun laws are not built the same way...

Nope and even if they were wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Agent11]

Why don't they just put a bounty on any illegal crossing the border? Make people take a class so they understand the law and make a reality show of it.

Like hunting bigfoot, only based in reality.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Borders as a filter for physical goods? No, they don't work unless you're willing to do what it takes to make them work. And Americans have proven we don't have that will. Any time the topic of enforcing the southern border comes up certain groups go into tirades about racism and how pointless such ideas are. Ironically, these same people who believe fences and armed guards can't stop millions of people and drug runners from crossing the border, but somehow making guns illegal will magically make them disappear. The logical inconsistency of the left is mind boggling.

BINGO! :thumbsup:

 

[OrByte]

I still see no active gun BAN in Chicago. anyone?

here is an interesting interview on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168853287/how-do-gun-bans-affect-violent-crime-rates

"Well, there were two places in the country, Steve, that still had sweeping bans on handguns. They were Chicago and Washington, D.C. But the Supreme Court in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 threw out those sweeping bans, so no more outright bans on handgun ownership in these places, but still some pretty tight restrictions."

 

[OrByte]

The impossible standard is banning all guns but I don't expect you to grasp that as many leftists seem incapable of basic reasoning skills. If you do then you have my apologies. What law(s) would you propose to stop this abhorrent behavior?



Big borders, small borders, incandescent ones too. Provide proof that any border in any time in history kept people from getting what they want. oh okay, well it was pretty rough on those in the concentration camps under Nazi rule. I suppose that would work. Is this your ideal border?



So let me get this right. You think passing another law will reducegun violence. However we have the most stringent laws you could ask for in Chicago by way of an outright ban. Yet you have critical thinking skills? mmmmm not thinking so.



LOL yes as the above proves.



Those who choose not to be honest with themselves when shown the error of their thinking I have no use for. Challenging mens minds and not letting them squirm out kinda makes people upset. So you're bound to spill some milk.



Nope and even if they were wouldn't make a difference.

is there an outright ban in Chicago or are you just full of shit?

 

[Agent11]

Look up Mcdonald v Chicago.

The city required firearms to be registered but refused to register handguns, this was proven to be unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how the law has changed since, but it's been a few years.

 

[NoStateofMind]

is there an outright ban in Chicago or are you just full of shit?

An outright ban didn't work and neither will "tight restrictions" (keep them in your home). I have to admit I assumed the outright ban was still in effect. I was wrong in that assumption. However this does not change the argument at hand one bit. Gun violence will exist regardless of what laws are enacted and no border created will stop it.

Even if we disregard the fact that there is no outright ban, during the years of 1994-2004 there was and guess what? link

A chart using these data and published in the Journal Sentinel does show that while the Clinton/Emanuel assault weapons ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, mass shootings actually rose slightly and that after its repeal there was no precipitous rise, as supporters had warned.

So your laws, no matter how many, do not stop the very thing you want to stop most.

 

[monovillage]

is there an outright ban in Chicago or are you just full of shit?

There has never, NEVER been an outright ban on firearms anywhere in this country. The rich, and the politically well connected could always obtain firearms. Your whining about the semantics of what is a ban is pure bullshit.

 

[waggy]

There has never, NEVER been an outright ban on firearms anywhere in this country. The rich, and the politically well connected could always obtain firearms. Your whining about the semantics of what is a ban is pure bullshit.

very very true.

Look up Mcdonald v Chicago.

The city required firearms to be registered but refused to register handguns, this was proven to be unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how the law has changed since, but it's been a few years.

yeah it just changed in the last year. maybe less. they HAD to change the law. But the law they changed it to is still makes it very very hard for the avarage person to own a firearm.


now if you have money and are connected? oh shit you get it easy.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Borders as a filter for physical goods? No, they don't work unless you're willing to do what it takes to make them work. And Americans have proven we don't have that will. Any time the topic of enforcing the southern border comes up certain groups go into tirades about racism and how pointless such ideas are. Ironically, these same people who believe fences and armed guards can't stop millions of people and drug runners from crossing the border, but somehow making guns illegal will magically make them disappear. The logical inconsistency of the left is mind boggling.

You didn't answer my question. Is a border that is partially effective better than no border at all?

If it's not any better, then why do we have borders?

 

[OrByte]

An outright ban didn't work and neither will "tight restrictions" (keep them in your home). I have to admit I assumed the outright ban was still in effect. I was wrong in that assumption. However this does not change the argument at hand one bit. Gun violence will exist regardless of what laws are enacted and no border created will stop it.

Even if we disregard the fact that there is no outright ban, during the years of 1994-2004 there was and guess what? link



So your laws, no matter how many, do not stop the very thing you want to stop most.

so...you assumed...

and yes..it does change the argument significantly. And now you want to shift your argument...typical

I can't tell if you assumed or outright lied. It's hard to reason with someone that uses such poor reasoning in their argument.

makes pretty much everything you say worthless...dontcha think?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you want to stray away from his argument and make your own so be it. But don't strut in here thinking you know his argument and bust out a kneejerk reaction like they did in Chicago.

So you're incapable of understanding a simple analogy. Why am I not surprsed.

A difference. You want to make a difference? Hows the difference in Chicago? Has it stopped the killing? Oh but let me guess, if its banned everywhere guns will cease to exist! You wanna talk about logic, you should start practicing it first.

Mind-numbingly stupid. You are literally incapable of conducting a rational conversation. It's actually pretty sad to watch.

That's your problem, though, not mine.

The facts remain: a gun ban in a city in a country where guns are legal elsewhere, is not the same as a gun ban nationwide. I don't support a gun ban nationwide, but I *do* support gun ownership bans for people too moronic to understand the difference between the two things I just mentioned.

 

[OrByte]

There has never, NEVER been an outright ban on firearms anywhere in this country. The rich, and the politically well connected could always obtain firearms. Your whining about the semantics of what is a ban is pure bullshit.

I think you are wrong. According to Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 there were bans on firearms and the justice system worked as it should and removed such bans.

and it isn't an argument on semantics.

It was the OP's argument not mine. He argued that a complete BAN on guns doesnt work in Chicago...so why would more gun legislation work?

it is his premise, not semantics.

and who gives a flying fvck about "well connected" people getting guns... now you are just shifting your argument as poorly as the OP.

tsk tsk tsk...