80 replies to this topic

[Whitey]

I was merely responding to equally useless, undebatable points. If you can argue the validity of any of the claims I responded to, be my guest. Regardless of your capacity to do so, your post was both unwarranted and noncontributory to the topic at hand. Thanks for the flame-stirring though.

Moving on. Ion Cannon!, by your logic, I fail to understand why Chicago's violent crime rates are so high in comparison with the U.S. norm, considering Chicago's strict gun laws relative to many other U.S. municipalities.



Granted the above chart does not document "gun crimes" specifically, but I believe it is fair to assume that given the percentage of violent crimes committed with guns in the U.S., a similarly large percentage, if not larger can be applied to the city of Chicago.

[Wizard]

Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 22:58, said:

Regardless of your capacity to do so, your post was both unwarranted and noncontributory to the topic at hand.

I was hardly flame stirring, just encouraging someone who I thought had requested the ability to respond here, to actually respond, rather than meaningless counter-one-liners, that don't encourage debate, regardless of whether or not the previous one had.

[Ion Cannon!]

Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 22:58, said:

I was merely responding to equally useless, undebatable points. If you can argue the validity of any of the claims I responded to, be my guest. Regardless of your capacity to do so, your post was both unwarranted and noncontributory to the topic at hand. Thanks for the flame-stirring though.

Moving on. Ion Cannon!, by your logic, I fail to understand why Chicago's violent crime rates are so high in comparison with the U.S. norm, considering Chicago's strict gun laws relative to many other U.S. municipalities.



Granted the above chart does not document "gun crimes" specifically, but I believe it is fair to assume that given the percentage of violent crimes committed with guns in the U.S., a similarly large percentage, if not larger can be applied to the city of Chicago.

If your seriously trying to argue that if there were no gun controls, gun crime would decrease, then your pretty silly.

I imagine the fact its so high in chicago is due to localised factors, and the aforementioned point that in the US people treat and think of guns very differently than in the UK. If I knew more about the localised factors I would discuss those, but I don't.

Why do you think gun crime is higher in chicago? and do you think relaxing the gun control laws would help?

[Whitey]

Gun control laws are being forcibly relaxed as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Though efforts have been made to counter it. I suppose we'll see the effects sooner or later.

"I imagine the fact its so high in chicago is due to localised factors,"

I could use that same argument to explain the lesser gun violence in the UK then. It may not be the gun laws at all, but rather various social cleavages or lack thereof. Thus your comparison is moot.

As for you, Wizard, this really isn't the place for such discussion. If you would like to carry it further, send me an IM or PM.

Edited by Boidy, 17 July 2010 - 22:27.

[Ion Cannon!]

Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:26, said:

Gun control laws are being forcibly relaxed as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Though efforts have been made to counter it. I suppose we'll see the effects sooner or later.

"I imagine the fact its so high in chicago is due to localised factors,"

I could use that same argument to explain the lesser gun violence in the UK then. It may not be the gun laws at all, but rather various social cleavages or lack thereof. Thus your comparison is moot.

As for you, Wizard, this really isn't the place for such discussion. If you would like to carry it further, send me an IM or PM.

Chicago is a much smaller area than the UK, it also has a much smaller population, thus the effect of an anomaly will be much greater. When were the gun control laws relaxed in chicago? If it was after the guns had already built up in number that would explain the greater incidence of gun violence. Relaxing gun laws in an area with a large amount of guns already will likely lead to a short term spike. Have gun laws always been strict in Chicago and was the homicide rate higher than the US average even before the gun control was introduced?

[Whitey]

It was quite recent that gun laws were relaxed. There is no possible way the effects have been seen yet.

I've been trying to find information on when strict laws were enacted but I admittedly cannot. However, referring to the chart, the gun crime rates have been pretty consistently high for decades.

[Wizard]

Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:26, said:

As for you, Wizard, this really isn't the place for such discussion. If you would like to carry it further, send me an IM or PM.

Promoting sound discussion is the place where ever I feel like it. Thread, PM or MSN.

@ the point in hand. Chicago has had a very violent history of lawlessness and one that I suspect is steeped in urban culture far more than any other city, even New York etc. Potentially it is unique to US in terms of violent crime, however those statistics do not have to involve firearms. I would speculate, based on the aforementioned cultural history of Chicago, that any crime in the networks of criminals in Chicago is violent or it wouldn't be undertaken.

It is however, unlikely, that any attempt to tighten gun control there would see a particular shift in the amount of firearms related offences.

[Ion Cannon!]

Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:51, said:

It was quite recent that gun laws were relaxed. There is no possible way the effects have been seen yet.

I've been trying to find information on when strict laws were enacted but I admittedly cannot. However, referring to the chart, the gun crime rates have been pretty consistently high for decades.

They have been very high yes. but there was a huge jump between 1982 and 1983. Peaked in about 1990, and have been coming down since. So I imagine the tightening of gun control was a knee jerk reaction from something? As crime had already been coming down.

[Zhao]

the best way to fix this is to either forcefully give everyone a gun or forcefully remove guns from the public hands as a whole.

Boidy you seem like quite the troll you know.

[Whitey]

I disagree entirely (with both statements).

Forcefully giving everybody a gun won't work because it would be costly and impossible to enforce. The same is true for the opposite. Total removal of firearms from the public... I can't imagine the number of shootouts that would start up as a result of the attempted seizure of criminally-owned weapons. So many people own them that police would have to be kicking every other door in some parts.

Neither extreme is at all feasible.

That said, I think I may have been flipped on the issue.

-leaves thread-

[Zhao]

A small town in chicago applied the same method of gaving everyone a gun by law , result? no crime.
Im sure the same can be done in the opposite way.

Edited by Aaron:Wii, 18 July 2010 - 03:57.

[GuardianTempest]

"AK-47's for everyone!!!"

Soon if there is a local disagreement the civilians will band together and overthrow the municipality.

And if there is no guns, the same should apply to the law enforcement, give them swords and bullet-proof armor(in the form of metal) and watch the view from the cliff.

[BeefJeRKy]

Chicago may have a higher crime rate than the US average, but I think you have to compare it cities of similar size. How does Chicago fare against Miami, Seattle, New York city, Los Angeles, Houston, Toronto?

[Wizard]

scope, on 18 Jul 2010, 8:02, said:

Chicago may have a higher crime rate than the US average, but I think you have to compare it cities of similar size. How does Chicago fare against Miami, Seattle, New York city, Los Angeles, Houston, Toronto?

I don't think that Chicago's size is the issue. This is the city that brought us the St. Valentines day massacre. Violence and particularly gun related violence is most probably embedded in the criminal culture, hence it's excessive rates of violent crime.

[Ion Cannon!]

GuardianTempest, on 18 Jul 2010, 5:21, said:

"AK-47's for everyone!!!"

Soon if there is a local disagreement the civilians will band together and overthrow the municipality.

And if there is no guns, the same should apply to the law enforcement, give them swords and bullet-proof armor(in the form of metal) and watch the view from the cliff.

This is the PA, make serious posts or don't post at all.

Quote

A small town in chicago applied the same method of gaving everyone a gun by law , result? no crime.
Im sure the same can be done in the opposite way.

Can you provide some evidence for that?

[Golan]

Chicago isn't an isolated entity like a country as the UK or a country in a larger, homogeneous area like Europe would be, so you can hardly derive much from the fact that it has strict gun laws if a half hour trip means you can stock up on military grade weaponry without issue.

Also, the statistic is comparing a city's crime rate to the whole US mean - crime rates are by default higher in cities so it's pretty much meaningless.

[GuardianTempest]

I can't believe I fluctuate between my two personalities...
----------

Guns can be OK but if it weren't for the uneducated people mistaking the stereotype that they'll achieve power or popularity or bad-assery through guns, then might as well give them plastic swords, media encourages that in movies.

There's also the criminal element, you could give them painful but non-lethal BB-guns/airsoft provided they'll only use it for protection and not self-vanity, or like those guys joyriding and shooting every passer-by with a paintball barrage.

Discipline really is the key, and nothing more...now how to stop the black market from importing guns? Now that I don't know.

[Alias]

If you remove guns gradually gun culture is eliminated and the demand for the black market is almost nothing.
There are illegal guns here, yes, but far far less than there would be if we had a strong gun culture.

Criminal organisations grow weed instead as it is far more profitable.

[GuardianTempest]

Alias, on 19 Jul 2010, 7:17, said:

If you remove guns gradually gun culture is eliminated and the demand for the black market is almost nothing.
There are illegal guns here, yes, but far far less than there would be if we had a strong gun culture.

Criminal organisations grow weed instead as it is far more profitable.

Weed can be easily dealt with(and that's another topic!!).

[Alias]

It's a lot easier to for the government to deal with guns than it is to deal with cannabis, which is my point.

Edited by Alias, 19 July 2010 - 09:28.

[Wizard]

Alias, on 19 Jul 2010, 0:17, said:

If you remove guns gradually gun culture is eliminated and the demand for the black market is almost nothing.
There are illegal guns here, yes, but far far less than there would be if we had a strong gun culture.

I don't agree that legislation would have such a substantial impact on the culture of use of these weapons by criminals, civilians yes, as they would arguably adhere to the law anyway.

There are two types of gun crime. The first is criminal on criminal, ala the Mafia. The second is criminal on civilian.

Your point rings true in the second instance, admittedly, but I don't see that crews, gangs, groups or organisations whose principle purpose is crime, will simply stop using weapons. And, I would speculate, that a large proportion of all crime is directly related, in some way, to these organised groups. The crackhead who wants your TV will probably find it harder to acquire a gun and his need to will diminish, if the homeowner he is robbing isn't allowed a gun either, but I do wonder what percentage of gun crime is related to this sort of activity and what is related to the wider network of criminal activities.

In the US, I wonder what percentage of gun crime is committed by the civilian on civilian, ie heat of the moment revenge style attack, and what is committed by a career criminal. I most certainly agree that legislation would, in theory, stop the jilted lover from blowing the head off of his ex. Would the statistics show a huge decrease or a minimal one?

[Whitey]

But spur of the moment crimes of passion and whatever other such violent crimes take place are not always committed with firearms. Firearms are just a more efficient method. But knives, blunt objects, and whatever else is lying around serve the same purpose. The time to rationalize is not expanded by very much in taking away a gun. Once the murderer gets a hold of any such object, he or she will be subject to adrenaline, this "heat of the moment" feeling, and go through the crime anyway. It has happened innumerable times throughout the past, I don't see why gun legislation would change that. It is simply pushing crime from "Violent Gun Crime" to "Violent Non-Gun Crime".

[Alias]

The thing is, people are usually far more likely to survive from violent non-gun crime compared to violent gun crime.

[Whitey]

I disagree. A clean through-and-through bullet wound will be far less damaging than a large majority of stab wounds. As for blunt force, yeah, perhaps. But I really feel you are overstating the capabilities of a gun. Plenty can do just as much if not more damage.

[Golan]

Pretty much every weapon is lethal in such an attack, simply because most victims will bleed to death or get finished of when the aggressor realizes what he/she has done. If the intent is to kill, even when just subconsciously, it really doesn't matter what weapon is used.