Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I post facts will you accept them, or just ignore them?
Despite potential penalties of $5,000 in fines or 90 days in jail, the city's law appears to have little sway over those who've registered with the state to own or possess a firearm. Of the 116,173 Chicagoans who have FOID cards, only 2.7 percent have registered a gun with the city.
Barely 3500 people have registered their weapons since the ban was lifted. Hardly enough to support your assertions.
There are also thousands of additional guns in the city whose owners haven't followed any sort of legal process—last year, for example, Chicago police seized an average of more than 20 illegal firearms a day.
The Sullivan Act is a percfect example of how banning weapons makes it safe for criminals and crime skyrockets.
One comment was quite good:
Based on this, we can make a few educated guesses about how Chicago's gun laws have worked out for folks:
· The Chicago Democratic machine likes it a lot, because they can dispense favors by granting or withholding police protection.
· The CPD likes it, because they can get away with more corruption.
· The street crooks and Black assault mobs love it, because it lets them rob and beat people with impunity knowing that the penalties levied on citizens who shot them would be much harsher than they'd ever get for TNB.
· Liberals get a self-righteous tingle because they believe all wrong-thinking people should be controlled. They don't see crime as a major issue.
· Regular victims of crime and harassment aren't doing so well.
Every state that has eased gun ownership requirements, endorsed open carry, and made CCPs available have seen dramatic decreases in crime.
While the murder of 26 is horrific, it has also turned into a circus for the anti-gun zealots.
Andrew Papachristos, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts who studies gangs and gun crimes in Chicago, argues that gun laws should focus on the people perpetuating violence and the illegal ways they're getting weapons. "We're not talking about your father's guns—we're talking about guns used in crimes," he says. "It's the felons in possession of guns—that's really where the efforts should be."
LOGIC & FACTS trump IDEOLOGY & WISHFUL THINKING
I might be inclined to agree with some of this, except for one thing: TNB is basically a racist acronym. The "N" in TNB is the "n" word, and TNB basically means "typical (explicative) behavior". And given what that sentence was talking about, it was basically racial. All credibility was lost the minute a racial slur was thrown out there.
As was suggested by someone, if you want to get the murder rate down, start by solving the problems involving gangs. It's mostly gangs doing this. That is what Ceasefire was about.
Lots of handguns doesn't mean they will use them.... ok maybe they will but we still should have the right to have them, even if others won't have the right to live...
How do you explain the firearms crime rate going down since 1990 then? More people own firearms now than did in 1990, so shouldn't those rates be going up?
Allow concealed carry in Chicago and justifiable homicides would increase while other homicides would drop. So would crime. But nothing makes sense in Chicago, its bizarro world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.