Gun Control
#51
Posted 17 July 2010 - 21:58
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.
#52
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:16
Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 22:58, said:
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.
#53
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:19
Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 22:58, said:
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?
#54
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:26
"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.
#55
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:46
Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:26, said:
"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?
#56
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:51
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.
#57
Posted 17 July 2010 - 22:54
Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:26, said:
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.
#58
Posted 17 July 2010 - 23:10
Boidy, on 17 Jul 2010, 23:51, said:
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.
#59
Posted 18 July 2010 - 01:18
Boidy you seem like quite the troll you know.
#60
Posted 18 July 2010 - 02:29
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-
#61
Posted 18 July 2010 - 03:57
Im sure the same can be done in the opposite way.
Edited by Aaron:Wii, 18 July 2010 - 03:57.
#62
Posted 18 July 2010 - 04:21
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.
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.
#64
Posted 18 July 2010 - 10:59
scope, on 18 Jul 2010, 8:02, said:
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.
#65
Posted 18 July 2010 - 12:45
GuardianTempest, on 18 Jul 2010, 5:21, said:
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
Im sure the same can be done in the opposite way.
Can you provide some evidence for that?
#66
Posted 18 July 2010 - 16:22
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.
#67
Posted 18 July 2010 - 21:52
----------
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.
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.
#68
Posted 18 July 2010 - 23:17
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.
#69
Posted 19 July 2010 - 09:19
Alias, on 19 Jul 2010, 7:17, said:
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!!).
DeviantArt
*RWUAAARAAUGHRWAGH!!*
--------------------------
"I am an artist of daydreams. With just a little material, be it a picture, audio or a simple thought, it could fuel a derivative masterpiece."
And I also do Walfas Comics...when I feel like it.
#70
Posted 19 July 2010 - 09:25
Edited by Alias, 19 July 2010 - 09:28.
#71
Posted 19 July 2010 - 09:42
Alias, on 19 Jul 2010, 0:17, said:
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?
#72
Posted 19 July 2010 - 15:52
#73
Posted 19 July 2010 - 16:09
#74
Posted 19 July 2010 - 16:18
#75
Posted 19 July 2010 - 18:07
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users