Chicago’s newly armed residents send murder rate plummeting

reply to post by xuenchen


I'm for concealed carry (and live in Illinois) and will be getting my permit as soon as I can squeeze the classes in, but I'm thinking this has more to do with the weather in the first quarter than anything. Most people limited their outdoor activity to getting to and from their vehicles.

reply to post by xuenchen


This is a good thing if true but with the coldest winter since who knows when it will be interesting to see what happens this summer.

Either way dead fish Rahm will take credit for what ever they put this good news on even though it has nothing to do with him.

i truly yearn for the day that guns and weapons will not be necessary for safety...that being said, those concealed guns are saving lives.

even more lives could be saved if ads were placed showing how much crime has been deterred since the new concealed carry laws.

As someone from Chicago, the weather and shootings go together like peanut butter and jelly. Chicago experienced one of its' coldest and most snowiest winters of all time. This "Spring" has seen temps 10-15° below normal on a near daily basis.

Once the weather warms up, and that sun finally comes out, you will see the shootings skyrocket like usual. The Summer is the deadliest time in Chicago and we will probably see another Holiday weekend ( Memorial Day, 4th of July, etc.) with 21+ shootings.

Wait till those temps finally rebound to normal temps and everyone will come out of their homes...

reply to post by xuenchen


Proven ones again just like in many other country's giving the common man the right to do what criminals do illegally with fire arms will cut way down on gun crimes. Not taking the guns away from law abiding citizens that they use them for protection.

soontide
While I'm a great supporter of the 2nd amendment and an armed citizenry being able to protect itself, I really can't, in good conscience, agree that the drop in the murder rate in Chicago in the first quarter is due to CCW permits being finally given out. More likely, it's got more to do with the horrible weather than anything else. Let's see the statistics after a year. I know what the outcome will be. Lower crime rate. This bit of information, though, seems a bit thin to me.

Agreed. I am hopeful that CCW laws will prove to also work towards this result, but at this point, I think it's had more to do with weather than anything else. It's just been too cold to kill

This all has to do with reverse psychology. That is one of the government's main weapons of choice. Take cigarettes for example, you are more likely to start smoking if it's waved in your face and you're told not to do it. This applies to almost everything, from insubordination, to taking a cookie out of the jar when mommy says not to. A simplistic tactic is working against most of the population. Learn about reverse psychology and you will see how much it's used in politics, I promise

reply to post by Luftwagen


He hit it on the head with his comment. It was in the 50's here this weekend and 2 more were killed and 21 others shot.

reply to post by xavi1000


Same here in Australia. Seems only 1st world countries with a "right" to carry guns have a problem with them

reply to post by Idiosonic


The four countries that formed an
allegiance to stop Germany in both
WWI and WWII were
Australia, Canada, Britain and USA.

Coincidentally since 1960 the
firearms have been removed from the hands of
Britain, Australia and Canada.

Concerted effort is being made to do the same to Americans.

I believe the majority of Americans have let other first world countries
be the "crash test dummies" in the experiment to disarm
major countries which have Democracies and free Republic
governments.

You boys from Britain would be speaking German if it weren't
for citizens in USA sending you our guns and kids to fight for you.

We will probably be doing it again one of these days.

in 1993 AR 190-14 disarmed all military persons except
for those regularly employed in a law enforcement or security job.

pre 1993 there were no incidents of shootings at armed service installations.

since 1993 there have been 14 incidents resulting in
the death of 41 persons and the injury of 116 more.


can any of you anti-gun fanatics connect the dots?

reply to post by seagull


IMO there is no way no matter how well organized and armed people are with civilian weapons , will they have a chance against drones, aircraft carriers, guided missiles, satellite surveillance ,nuclear weapons, chemical and biological agents just to name a few. You can't shoot an enemy that you can't see , is stronger and at minimum decades more advance than you.

We have already seen how advance technology has overtaken organized and military equipped countries with more fire power than any civilian militia could ever have , over and over again.I'm not saying this because I'm happy about it , but its because its the truth and not based on some Rambo or Reddawn movie.

In the VERY UNLIKELY event the gov't goes FULL RETARD on us as stated by one of the other members post , we would be toast going head to head against our very own military. The only chance we would have is for the military men and women of this country to realize our gov't has gone rogue and take a stand against harming civilians.

If anything , creating armed militias might actually make it worse and harder for our military men and women to see the truth and easier to justify the killing of a civilian population.

Xtrozero

interupt42

Sorry but that is the reality of today, gun ownership is only viable protection for citizens against citizens.

There are a few big reasons why Russia and China would not invade the US. One is we are isolated and it would take a huge effort to get a foothold on our soil, and the other is everyone owns a gun or two or 10....Think of 5000 Russian paratroopers going into East LA...they never make it out alive.


Not too fast about rolling on your belly and baring your throat over Government tyranny. Remember we are 50 united state not a democracy, and so that is 50 different countries and if the time came for another civil war type scenario the civilian stockpile would have an effect.

At one point in time an armed civilian population was and would have been a viable concern when going to war. However, that is no longer a deterrent as military technology is so far ahead of civilian weapons. They can fight the civilian population without ever setting foot on our continent.

What use are your weapons going to be or who are you going to shoot at when you are being attacked from above via drones, satellite guided missiles, biological agents, or even nuclear bombs?

I'm for gun ownership but I realize Rambo and Red Dawn where just movies. Our weapons today are to protect a civilian from other civilian criminals.

xavi1000
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

I dont mean to argue, member above stated that US or he need to educate rest of the World about guns.I'm in Europe (part of the rest of the World) and we dont need guns and we are doing fine.

edit on 4-4-2014 by xavi1000 because: (no reason given)

Well... im also from Europe and i beg to differ!

TiedDestructor
reply to post by interupt42

 

I like you have no doubt that if the military went full retard on us we WOULD lose. But I wouldn't call it a "win" for them.

Who's gonna pay the fat cats salaries? Nah...they're too greedy to kill us all

I'm with you, the incentive is not there for them. What better group of consumers can they ask for that are easily distracted? Squirrel. They are happy with us and how we continue to play the game.

It just makes me puzzled when people actually think our civilian weapons is some type of deterrent against a military threat. After all it has worked out so well for foreign armed millataries .

I can picture it know in the command center, sir going to Irag or trying to overtake IRAN and other countries is one thing, but to go against Billy Bob Rambo and his personal arsenal of civilian weapons is just crazy.

If the rest of the world is so good why is everybody not sneaking into Europe, Middle east and Asia? They all come here why do you think that is? They don't say to themselves Americans all have guns how can I be safe there? One word freedom, kept in force by Americans guns.

reply to post by interupt42


Red Dawn? Rambo? Just about as far from what the reality would be as possible...

In this unlikely scenario (in that we're in total agreement), you must remember this, those ex-soldiers, especially the combat vets; are among the most highly trained, skilled soldiers in the world, and (unfortunately) the most experienced. You're going to have ex green berets who are trained to train unskilled people how to fight trained soldiers. Rangers. Etc... Just about the most dangerous troops America has, or anyone has.

It would be bloody. ...and no guarantee that the rebels would win. But there's no guarantee that the govt. side would win either. The only guarantee is that a lot of people would die.

This is, of course, my humble opinion. One that is shared, at least in part, by our current regime...

seagull
reply to post by interupt42

 

We agree on two things.
1. Not likely to happen.
2. A lot of people would die.

However,

In this unlikely scenario (in that we're in total agreement), you must remember this, those ex-soldiers, especially the combat vets; are among the most highly trained, skilled soldiers in the world, and (unfortunately) the most experienced. You're going to have ex green berets who are trained to train unskilled people how to fight trained soldiers. Rangers. Etc... Just about the most dangerous troops America has, or anyone has.

You must also remember that existing soldiers that are still enlisted range from newbies to equally as skilled ex soldiers and even more knowledgeable in regards to the latest technologies. However, its not about skills , there comes a time when power, technology and the lack of regards for humanity triumphs experience and knowledge.

Give me a remote controlled drone and satellite intel on the location of your best skilled civilian armed ex navy seals and they wouldn't be a match to my joystick. They most likely wouldn't even see it coming.

It simply boils down to too much of a gap between civilian and military weapons that is in their favor and that is not even considering the top secret stuff.

No general in the US army would be afraid or hesitate to overtake a country that is armed with civilian weapons , heck we don't even blink at foreign military threats which are more trained and equipped. I

if (again in the unlikely event) they want us gone we are gone. The only thing they struggle with is trying to spin the truth of war.

What good is your riffles going to be when I'm shooting at you from above via drones or satellite guided missiles or perhaps nuclear or biological warfare?

reply to post by interupt42


I'm not disagreeing with you, so much as saying you're not seeing the entire picture. These guys, and gals, know what these drones are capable of...

It's hard to use a drone missile if you don't know where the rebels are. They're not going to be in plain sight. Camouflage does work. I don't pretend to be an expert, 'cause I'm not... But spoofing drones with a little thought has to be possible.

Example: I'm a rebel. Scouting something in downtown Seattle. I'm not, as odd as it sounds, carrying anything even resembling a weapon, or a communication device. I'm dressed in jeans and a tshirt, and any partners with me aren't either... How is a drone, and it's human operator, going to know who/what I am? Behaviour? Possible, I suppose. But that's where the training comes into it.

But as I say, I'm not an expert in this. Tech. has it's limits, so, too, do its users. Ultimately, it's still human -vs- human. One has a high tech camera, the other has the knowledge to spoof it. Won't be 100% effective, but more effective than most might think. Afghanistan/Iraq are showing that.

We've probably reached the point of agreeing to disagree, though...