Chicago gun ban struck down! (Washington, El Paso: crime rate, law school, university)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Last I heard Chicago was the murder capitol of the U.S.

Nope. In shear numbers of murders, Chicago has been tops occasionally because New York and L.A. have lower crime rates. But "crime rates" are adjusted on a per capita basis, and Chicago has been nowhere near the top for decades.

[urza216]

I don't like guns. They are used for killing and I don't like killing. But if you are gonna kill someone, I think a gun, the "great equalizer," is a p*ssy way to do it (even it is shaped a lot like a d**k). I fail to see how owning a gun increases a person's qualifications for decency.. lol.

However, I fully support an American's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bare arms..

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

It saved both my grandfather's life and mine years ago. Just recently an 80 year old man saved his life from a home invader using an illegal handgun in Chicago.

That 80 year old did a wonderful job defending himself. But incidents like this are so rare that they aren't even statistically significant.

If we're going to live in a society where every thug and criminal has a gun, I personally would like the right to have one too. But I'm not buying into the theory that gun rights reduce crime. They don't. There are published studies that disagree with me, but most of them have been refuted.

For me it's an issue of control. I feel like I have more control over my own destiny if I can arm myself in a city full of armed thugs. Self defense with a gun may be tricky, but I would like to at least have that chance if I'm ever in a bad situation.

[brien51]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta all have some form of concealed or open carry, and the crime rates in each of those cities are higher than Chicago's. I don't think gun laws have any effect on anything. They don't seem to reduce crime, but conversely gun rights also don't seem to reduce crime.

Do you have any facts to support your conclusion here or is it just your feeling?

Here are some facts:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

[SIZE=4]Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense?[/SIZE]

Summary Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to successfully thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite. (Of course this doesn't mean that all people should have a gun, or a gun should be used in all life-threatening situations.)

If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.

"More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr.,


The Lott-Mustard Report John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

[billybones]

Guns do not reduce crime, they reduce criminals.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

That 80 year old did a wonderful job defending himself. But incidents like this are so rare that they aren't even statistically significant.

If we're going to live in a society where every thug and criminal has a gun, I personally would like the right to have one too. But I'm not buying into the theory that gun rights reduce crime. They don't. There are published studies that disagree with me, but most of them have been refuted.

For me it's an issue of control. I feel like I have more control over my own destiny if I can arm myself in a city full of armed thugs. Self defense with a gun may be tricky, but I would like to at least have that chance if I'm ever in a bad situation.

Incorrect. Most incidents are simply never reported widely or at all in the press. Many are not reported to the police even. There have been studies on that. There's anywhere from several hudnred thousand incidents a year of guns used for self-defense (and this doesn't mean a shot is always fired, in most of them, no shots are fired), to over a million.

You have it reversed on the studies on guns/crime: the studies showing an increase in crime with less gun control, have been refuted.

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by billybones

Guns do not reduce crime, they reduce criminals.

Guns don't kill people. People (with guns) kill people.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

Guns don't kill people. People (with guns) kill people.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

[brien51]

Originally Posted by mas23

lol @ any person who thinks allowing people to carry guns is going to solve anything.

Ahhh but it does:

"More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr.,




The Lott-Mustard Report John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html


Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to successfully thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite. (Of course this doesn't mean that all people should have a gun, or a gun should be used in all life-threatening situations.)

If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).

[eevee]

didn't DC repel its gun ban not too long ago? what affect did it have on their crime rates?