In continued defiance of the Democrat narrative calling for stricter gun laws, Chicago’s homicide problem just keeps getting worse despite gun laws that are already among the most restrictive in the country. If fact, even the New York Times described Chicago’s gun laws as some of the “toughest restrictions,” saying:
Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
Data compiled the Stanley Manne Children’s Research Institute revealed that homicide rates in Chicago increased to 18.81 per 100,000 in 2015 vs. 17.64 in 2010, a 7% increase. That’s compared to a 6% decline for the United States overall for the same period and over 4x the national average. In fact, at 18.81 homicides per 100,000, Chicago would be ranked as the 201st most dangerous country out of the 218 countries tracked by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Perhaps even more shocking is the disparity in homicide rates by ethnicity. African American homicides increased 19% between 2010 and 2015 vs. 8% for Caucasians and a 2% decline for Latinos. Data revealed that African American homicide rates were eight times higher than Caucasians in 2005, 16 times higher in 2010, and 18 times higher in 2015.
Homicide rates were the highest among young people with the highest rates experience among 20-24 year olds at 64.28, a 48% increase in 5 years.
Finally, despite some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, 87% of homicides were committed with firearms, up from 79% in 2010. So how could the city that has the toughest gun laws in the country, laws described as the “closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban,” also have some of the highest gun-related homicide rates? Could it be, that criminals looking to use weapons for violence have a lower propensity to follow laws and that by banning guns you’re really just taking them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens that wouldn’t have used them for violence anyway? Just a thought.
So the statistics show that we don’t want guns (figure 1) in the hands of young (table 4) African American (table 3) people’s hands.
Sounds logical to me…
But I will be aware of the potential for confirmation bias. The statistics offered do show that despite having what the author defines (loosely) as “gun laws that are already among the most restrictive in the country” the city of Chicago still has a problem.
Could it be something other than guns?
Another useless drivel comment from a liberal Canadian who knows one black person. Say whatever the fuck you mean, you dumbass.
Since Dumbass Doug isn’t capable of doing his own gun law research, here is the scoop on Chicago’s “tough” gun laws. He can’t get it through his thick liberal Canadian skull that making guns illegal doesn’t stop criminals from acquiring guns:
Chicago has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons. Chicago residents must “immediately” report a firearm that is stolen or lost, and must report the transfer of a firearm within 48 hours of such transfer. In a home where a person younger than 18 is present, all guns must be secured with a trigger lock, or stored in a locked container, or secured to the body of the legal owner.
Chicago formerly prohibited the sale of firearms within city limits, but on January 6, 2014, a federal judge ruled that this was unconstitutional. The judge granted the city’s request for six months to pass new laws regulating gun shops. On June 25, 2014, the city council passed a new law, allowing gun stores but restricting them to certain limited areas of the city, requiring that all gun sales be videotaped, and limiting buyers to one gun per 30-day period. Store owners must make their records available to the police, and employees must be trained to identify possible straw purchasers.
With the passage of the gun shop ordinance, Chicago also struck a previous total ban on the “transfer” of ammunition within city limits, limiting the ban only to gun shows, which, due to state preemption on handgun ammunition, only applies to long gun ammunition.
Cook County has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it has defined as assault weapons. Residents must report to the county sheriff within 48 hours any firearms that are stolen, lost, destroyed, or sold or otherwise transferred. The sheriff may share this information with other law enforcement agencies. Licensed firearms dealers must provide information to the county regarding purchasers and the guns they purchase, and receive approval before conducting sales. An individual may not purchase more than one firearm in a 30-day period. In a home where a person younger than 21 is present, all guns must be secured with a trigger lock, or stored unloaded in a locked container separate from the ammunition, or secured to the body of the legal owner. In Cook County, local laws, such as those of Chicago, take precedence over county laws that regulate similar matters. Cook County imposes a twenty-five dollar tax on the sale of any firearm by a retail dealer, in addition to the usual county sales tax. The county also has a tax on the sale of ammunition — five cents per round for centerfire ammunition and one cent per round for rimfire ammunition
Unbelievable what hoops we can all be taught to jump through, isn’t it? I realized the other day I have some ammunition I’d purchased for a handgun I long since misplaced or something and since it is a significant bulk box I purchased, I figure it is worth something. But, in Chicago, I couldn’t sell it to anyone without reporting the sale, i.e., “transfer” NOR can I even gift it to someone who might be able to use it.
Can you imagine what our forefathers are thinking right now?
Administrator: The author of the article did not define the ‘restrictivet’ gun laws except to put the negative-sounding word ‘restrictive’ in front of it. He left that to the reader.
You then expressed your confirmation bias with your own description/interpretation of what the author may have meant. You looked for aspects which confirmed the ‘restrictiveness’ of the laws, which is also a confirmation of what you see as a restriction of your individual and natural liberties.
You failed to proof-read what you wrote, however: Note the repetition in paragraphs 2 and 5. I realize you are recounting the facts of two distinct areas of Illinois, but since the laws are identical in almost all aspects, why not just say “In Chicago and in Cook County”, unless you just wanted extra words to make it appear more impressively ‘restrictive’?
“Could it be something other than guns?” – Dumbass Doug
Yes. Dumbass. It’s drugs.
I’ve got a liberal Canadian idea. Let’s make drugs illegal and then the blacks will stop killing each other. OH YEAH!!! Drugs are illegal too.
Oh Boy. What’s the solution now?
All I was commenting on was the use of statistical inference. WAYYY beyond your ‘scope’. Thanks for the lengthy and utterly useless explanation of the history of gun laws. It was beside the point.
What a bunch of gull-a-bulls!
And now my ideas are invalidated because of my nationality…
Hmmm….
Can’t you come up with anything better?
Your “ideas” are invalidated because you’re an imbecile.
Commands the Emperor King with no desire to explain…
I haven’t seen any of your ideas yet. Care to share them with the group, Stranger?
Can’t help you see them if you’re blind.
But if you need a clue, they’re at the top of the ‘comments’ section…
There are no ideas in either of your early posts to this thread. If you managed to get an idea it would die of loneliness inside the vacuum of your closed mind.
So I suppose what you just posted would not constitute an ‘idea’? Just like my post at the beginning of this thread had no ideas?
Granted, Ed. I concur.
Oops. I used a word you’re probably not familiar with. ‘Concur’ means agree. I agree yours is not an idea.
Why do I bother?