Chicago's Crime Rates Plummet After SCOTUS Removes Handgun Ban

[BBQ.Uncle]

http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011...tes-plummet-after-scotus-removes-handgun-ban/

Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in D.C., 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, but the national media has been completely silent. One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen.

 

[yanici]

It's good news for sure. But, if you tried to use the graph to convince an anti-gun person, it is quite obvious that general trend was "down" even before the handgun ban was passed.

 

[Dradian]

It's good news for sure. But, if you tried to use the graph to convince an anti-gun person, it is quite obvious that general trend was "down" even before the handgun ban was passed.

Which still helps our cause.

Either its helping lower crime, or its having no effect.

No effect = no need for the ban.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

 

[FrugalFannie]

3 killed, 17 injured last night.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...olence-chicago-crime-20111008,0,4264575.story

It must really suck to live there.

 

[joeendris]

3 killed, 17 injured last night.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...olence-chicago-crime-20111008,0,4264575.story

It must really suck to live there.

There seems to be a high rate of teenagers. They must be law-abiding scholars that were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

 

[neEEGuru]

Blood in the streets if citizens can have guns!!

 

[Zappa]

3 killed, 17 injured last night.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...olence-chicago-crime-20111008,0,4264575.story

It must really suck to live there.

Thankfully, the bad guys don't always win, even in Illinois.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...thers-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story

 

[Palladin]

in every case mentioned, the only person who had a legally owned gun was the pizza shop owner.

 

[Broc]

Which still helps our cause.

Either its helping lower crime, or its having no effect.

No effect = no need for the ban.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

see, an anti says: if no effect= no need to ban, then we can ban them sine they wont have an effect and you shouldnt care if they are banned. (i had one say that to me)

 

[Dradian]

see, an anti says: if no effect= no need to ban, then we can ban them sine they wont have an effect and you shouldnt care if they are banned. (i had one say that to me)

I care if they're banned
Just because I don't care if Porsche cars are banned doesn't mean they should be. I hope that you explained to that liberal that we don't ban things if people don't care about them. There MUST be a reason for society to ban anything.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

 

[Knob Creek]

Rahm will take credit for anything positive in that hell hole.

 

[whatluck]

I care if they're banned
Just because I don't care if Porsche cars are banned doesn't mean they should be. I hope that you explained to that liberal that we don't ban things if people don't care about them. There MUST be a reason for society to ban anything.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

I disagree. There is NO reason to ban anything in society.

 

[FreeWillie]

Thankfully, the bad guys don't always win, even in Illinois.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...thers-during-robbery-20111003,0,2549590.story

"the deputy used an employee's handgun to shoot the suspects. "

Where the hell was his gun?

 

[TomH]

The "effect" doesn't matter one way or the other, it's a constitutional right.

 

[Broc]

I care if they're banned
Just because I don't care if Porsche cars are banned doesn't mean they should be. I hope that you explained to that liberal that we don't ban things if people don't care about them. There MUST be a reason for society to ban anything.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

i didnt even bother to explain them anything. Someone with that mentality will not change their mind and it would jsut be a waste of my time to say anything.

 

[fencer]

I disagree. There is NO reason to ban anything in society.

Yes there is

 

[Dradian]

I care if they're banned
Just because I don't care if Porsche cars are banned doesn't mean they should be. I hope that you explained to that liberal that we don't ban things if people don't care about them. There MUST be a reason for society to ban anything.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

I disagree. There is NO reason to ban anything in society.

I don't think I can respond to that, need to know more. Are you just talking about banning items or banning "anything"(I.e. behavior/acts etc)

sent from tapatalk mobile app

 

[Bill Nance]

How many people in Chicago got guns legally after McDonald? From what I understand it's very few because of the licensing requirements.

The claim is bogus. crime rates were not affected by Macdonald because it still hasn't had a chance to come into effect.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I disagree. There is NO reason to ban anything in society.

I happen to think nuclear and biological weapons should be banned in everyday society...

...And let the arguments for the private ownership of anything the military has access to under the 2nd Amendment begin!!! Hopefully FS just got in some shipments of MIM-104's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whatluck]

I happen to think nuclear and biological weapons should be banned in everyday society...

...And let the arguments for the private ownership of anything the military has access to under the 2nd Amendment begin!!! Hopefully FS just got in some shipments of MIM-104's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is to validate one ban is to validate them all. We've seen many bans turn into slippery slopes.

 

[Dradian]

The problem is to validate one ban is to validate them all. We've seen many bans turn into slippery slopes.

I think a debate about slippery slopes is...in fact...a slippery slope

sent from tapatalk mobile app

 

[neEEGuru]

How many people in Chicago got guns legally after McDonald? From what I understand it's very few because of the licensing requirements.

The claim is bogus. crime rates were not affected by Macdonald because it still hasn't had a chance to come into effect.

While this may be true about actual new 'legal' guns out there, the effect that, you may now be more likely to be shot in the face, is usually the modulator.

 

[Bill Nance]

While this may be true about actual new 'legal' guns out there, the effect that, you may now be more likely to be shot in the face, is usually the modulator.

Sadly there isn't any actual data to prove that claim.

You can definitely say that more guns doesn't' equate to MORE crime. That negative correlation can be proved beyond doubt, which is what More Guns Less Crime was really all about. But there are too many other factors involved, from demographics to increased jail sentences to make a FACTUAL argument that the reduction in crime rates has anything to do with MacDonald.

It doesn't help the cause to make bogus arguments. The truth is powerful enough. I appreciate Lott's work, but a positive correlation is still pretty sketchy in general and Chicago in particular it's truly bogus.

 

[sgtdemeo]

Aww shucks. Don't lose faith.. Maybe one day big goverment will get a story thats actually factual. Funny though.. It dosen't stop people here from wasting our time with their trash.

 

[joeendris]

I care if they're banned
Just because I don't care if Porsche cars are banned doesn't mean they should be. I hope that you explained to that liberal that we don't ban things if people don't care about them. There MUST be a reason for society to ban anything.

sent from tapatalk mobile app

Waste of time trying to explain anything with logic to a liberal. "If I don't like it, ban it, regardless of what your view or arguement is"

While this may be true about actual new 'legal' guns out there, the effect that, you may now be more likely to be shot in the face, is usually the modulator.

This arguement was used by the NH CoP Association to stop SB88....they failed miserably and look, nobody's getting shot in the face in NH, even though folks are allowed to defend themselves legally anywhere they are, in NH. It's amazing that the folks in NH have shown amazing restraint instead of bellowing "I gotz a gun!" and mowing down the folks they don't like...which is what the CoPs up there said would happen.

 

[neEEGuru]

This arguement was used by the NH CoP Association to stop SB88....they failed miserably and look, nobody's getting shot in the face in NH, even though folks are allowed to defend themselves legally anywhere they are, in NH. It's amazing that the folks in NH have shown amazing restraint instead of bellowing "I gotz a gun!" and mowing down the folks they don't like...which is what the CoPs up there said would happen.

You know I didn't mean to defend a more guns = more shootings scenario, right?

Criminals knowing that the house they are breaking into might have a gun now, as opposed to almost guaranteed it didn't, might make them think twice.