Chicago Crime Rate Drops As Concealed Carry Applications Surge

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
lol, you can’t compare drugs to guns. Firstly, people don’t buy guns everyday or even once a week, so the profits from the illegal gun trade would never be as lucrative and they’re for not worth the effort for you average citizen. Secondly, recreational drugs have many purposes, which rarely involve killing another human being. Automatic handguns on the other hand have very few purposes, except to kill a person. It’s apples and oranges.

Anyway, I can respect the passion people have to have the right. Fact is, if I was an American citizen my selfish side would probably take over and I’d most likely own firearms.

Being passionate about having the right to own and carry firearms is one thing. But to try and argue that it some how makes a society safer to have large amounts of citizens walking around with loaded high powered automatic weapons that have no other purpose but to kill people is a fallacy.

You know what else is a fallacy? The fact that everyone in this country is walking around with loaded, high-powered automatic weapons. Also the idea that guns' only use is to kill a person is a fallacy as well. Automatic weapons in this country are HIGHLY regulated and EXTREMELY expensive to buy. Most people have semi-automatic weapons. You obviously know little about this debate...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The murder rate in China is about 5 times lower per capita than in the USA.

What's the murder rate in Mexico? I hear guns are illegal there too. How's that working out for them?

My understanding is that a lot of the illegal weapons in Mexico have been legally purchased in the US then imported to Mexico. Anyway, the violence in Mexico is a direct result of the largest illegal trade on earth. Selling illegal drugs to Americans, lol.

Looks like those big bad scary guns are at it again, making the world a better place.

Being surrounded by law abiding citizens carrying guns is not the most comfortable environment for a criminal. They prefer a weak, unarmed populace.

"You obviously know little about this debate..."

I'm no gun expert, if that's what you mean. I don't see the relevance to understanding the issue though.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The murder rate in China is about 5 times lower per capita than in the USA.

What's the murder rate in Mexico? I hear guns are illegal there too. How's that working out for them?

My understanding is that a lot of the illegal weapons in Mexico have been legally purchased in the US then imported to Mexico. Anyway, the violence in Mexico is a direct result of the largest illegal trade on earth. Selling illegal drugs to Americans, lol.

And? Guns are illegal in Mexico, so why do the criminals have them? Are you *GASP* saying that criminals don't listen to the laws and that making something illegal only effects law abiding citizens?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
"You obviously know little about this debate..."

I'm no gun expert, if that's what you mean. I don't see the relevance to understanding the issue though.

Then why are you weighing in on the topic? If you don't know what you are talking about, you look foolish when you say things like this:

But to try and argue that it some how makes a society safer to have large amounts of citizens walking around with loaded high powered automatic weapons that have no other purpose but to kill people is a fallacy.

Emphasis added for extra silliness.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Because your premise is false--that more laws equal less crime. If all guns went "poof" in the US tomorrow, they would flood in from our porous southern border like all of our narcotics and made in thousands of garage and basement shops like our pot. Unlike the UK and Australia,

Australia is probably the more fair comparison with the US, though the trouble countries are mostly to it's north.

we have dozens of banana republics south of us that already supply the cartels with full auto AKs at a fraction of the price a semi-auto version can be bought legally here--right now.

The Devil is in the Details;
I don't think you understand just how cheap many illegal substances are to make, and the average price they're sold for. Smuggling is an expensive and dangerous operation. You mention AK's from latin america? Firstly unless they're selling for something like 10 bucks the price is going to increase substantially when you take into account the amount of fuel and manhours spent on getting them to the US. take into account the increase in prices as things are passed down a distribution chain, each step on said chain liking to make a profit off the product. Furthermore, lets talk about sales themselves. Drugs are usually sold in relatively small amounts, the kind that fit easily in a pocket or a coat, furthermore the market for illegal drugs is a heck of a lot bigger than merely other street criminals, meaning that said product is sold off faster, and money made sooner, meaning the dealer stays in business. With AK's you're going to see dealers sitting on their product for more time. Supply is the key here

If there was demand, IE the criminal element for guns, then that demand would be supplied for the criminals by criminals just like every other failed prohibition. All you do is make the law abiding defenseless and give the criminal element safe targets.

but how much of that demand would be satisfied? heck I don't think criminals have a demand for guns specifically, they just want an weapon with the best ratio between effectiveness, affordability, and concealability.. those are three measures. guns are currently the most of effective, affordable, and concealable for them, due to them being plentiful in the US. shrink the supply of guns, and you'll see that ratio shifting over to knives and other weapons, as guns will no longer be affordable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
"You obviously know little about this debate..."

I'm no gun expert, if that's what you mean. I don't see the relevance to understanding the issue though.

Then why are you weighing in on the topic? If you don't know what you are talking about, you look foolish when you say things like this:

But to try and argue that it some how makes a society safer to have large amounts of citizens walking around with loaded high powered automatic weapons that have no other purpose but to kill people is a fallacy.

Emphasis added for extra silliness.

Why would I need to be an expert on guns to know, this debate has nothing to do with knowing the technical terms for firearms, it's about whether carrying concealed weapon makes for a safer society.

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The murder rate in China is about 5 times lower per capita than in the USA.

Does that include the Govt sponsored killings? Or just citizen on citizen..

a reply to: macman

from what I've heard the government of china isn't as bad as you might think, they monitor and block sites and whatever, but it's like what the US does, it ignores most "revolutionaries" unless they begin to show signs of being a credible threat, heck the chinese government even uses it's intelligence service to root out corrupt regional/local officials.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

I would think it wise if handguns(not rifles) were registered, and required background checks without private-sale exceptions. in addition to presently existing qualifications.

Why? Do you think that's going to inspire criminals? That they'll suddenly start playing by the rules ... and get caught with a gun they shouldn't have? Be real!!

The only thing you want is to impose a restriction on the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

If I had my way, there would be no restrictions on convicted felons owning firearms. You don't want a convicted felon in possession of a firearm ... simply don't let them out of jail.

a reply to: Snarl

Perhaps you need some perspective, the idea is to control the supply of guns available to criminals, by limiting the amount of civilian owners to a group that is seen as responsible enough to use and keep them.

To prevent or minimize the amount of irresponsible gun owners, and thus gradually reduce the amount of guns that end up in the hands of criminals is a worthwhile cause.

Although I do believe this will be the end result and that concealed carry ultimately reduces crime, I would urge some caution before celebrating this as a victory. Given how new concealed carry permits are in Chicago, I don't believe there's been enough time for it to have had a measurable impact on crime levels. I think there's likely some other cause here, and it wouldn't surprise me if the stats for this summer weren't just as bad as the earlier ones were good.

originally posted by: vor78
Although I do believe this will be the end result and that concealed carry ultimately reduces crime, I would urge some caution before celebrating this as a victory. Given how new concealed carry permits are in Chicago, I don't believe there's been enough time for it to have had a measurable impact on crime levels. I think there's likely some other cause here, and it wouldn't surprise me if the stats for this summer weren't just as bad as the earlier ones were good.

According to the article and reporting was from the first quarter I would think the lowest homicide rate in 56 years is nothing to sneeze about. But I also think that considering a CCW permit is $600.00 and they expect 300,000 to be permitted 180 million might cause them to fudge the numbers a bit, especially considering who the mayor is.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: Snarl

Perhaps you need some perspective, the idea is to control the supply of guns available to criminals, by limiting the amount of civilian owners to a group that is seen as responsible enough to use and keep them.

To prevent or minimize the amount of irresponsible gun owners, and thus gradually reduce the amount of guns that end up in the hands of criminals is a worthwhile cause.

Bassackwards thinking won't resolve your misconceptions of 'the problem'. If it's a crime for a certain segment of the population to possess a firearm ... then there needs to be a punishment which serves as a deterrent. If a convicted felon were subject to the loss of his/her hands, feet, and eyes ... and they knew this was the consequence of merely touching a weapon after being released from prison ... guess what non-law abiding citizens would refrain from even thinking about doing?

Stop trying to take my freedoms ... so you feel a little more secure.

FWIW, I don't see convicted felons as being the biggest problem in our society. Nanny-State seekers are.

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: mattsawaufo
a reply to: MarlinGrace

The murder rate in China is about 5 times lower per capita than in the USA.

Does that include the Govt sponsored killings? Or just citizen on citizen..

Doesn't include when they execute human traffickers for example or murderers. But including it is only about 3,000 people a year more.

a reply to: MarlinGrace>> I think that the unusually cold weather this winter played a large part in declines of violent crime in Chicago. But concealed carry and legal gun ownership definitely do reduce crime rates.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: MarlinGrace

You keep ignoring the fact (or are just culturally oblivious) that there’s a whole world outside of the US, who for the most part have very strict gun laws and just don’t have the same crime rates as the US.

After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia the government enacted extremely strict gun laws and over 15 years later there has not been any mass shootings. The evidence speaks for itself.

“Open carry” may keep some people safe, but that just means the criminals will go look for a easier target. Like (for a perfect example) a crazy dude might decide to go shoot up some elementary school where the majority are helpless children, rather than go shoot up a shopping mall where there’s likely to be lots of people carrying a guns.

All it takes is a little common sense to realise that the US lax gun laws makes a minority safer but puts the majority at far more risk.

I’m also convinced it’s the lax gun laws that causes the US police to be so on edge and eager to shoot or bash citizens.

Uh huh, are you really comparing the US to Australia? Seriously. Come visit the US, make sure to have an Avis rental sticker on the back, then freely drive through Miami, Detroit, LA or Chicago for starts. heck even walk through. Hell, live along the Mexico/US boarder. Live in the US for a while in one of those cities or areas, then come back and compare it to Australia.

American's don't just have guns to express constitutional right, but because of our own damn safety from criminals. Those criminals DO NOT abide by gun right restrictions put on citizens. Bullets travel faster than cops. Is that hard to understand?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
"You obviously know little about this debate..."

I'm no gun expert, if that's what you mean. I don't see the relevance to understanding the issue though.

Then why are you weighing in on the topic? If you don't know what you are talking about, you look foolish when you say things like this:

But to try and argue that it some how makes a society safer to have large amounts of citizens walking around with loaded high powered automatic weapons that have no other purpose but to kill people is a fallacy.

Emphasis added for extra silliness.

Why would I need to be an expert on guns to know, this debate has nothing to do with knowing the technical terms for firearms, it's about whether carrying concealed weapon makes for a safer society.

You don't need to be an expert but saying what you did doesn't make that opinion worthy of being taken into consideration because it's far reaching to the topic at hand. Large amounts of citizens WILL NOT be walking around with " loaded high powered automatic weapons." My open carry is not loaded and it is not an automatic weapon.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Ok, I meant to say semi-automatic, but either way my point stands. I mean how much effort does it take to pull a trigger, they can still kill multiple people within seconds. I think you’ll find that just about everyone (except maybe hardcore crims) who wasn’t raised in the US where it’s just seen as normal, are completely blown away by the fact that you can purchase a gun (let alone a semi-automatic) in some states without even needing to be licensed. Just crazy!

Also, don’t worry mate, we’re consumed with American culture over here, I do realise it’s a different environment. We’re a country of only 23 million compared to your (I think) 320 million and we don’t really have any areas that are simply unsafe to go (apart from maybe the odd street here and there). But then again, I doubt most right wing gun nuts venture into these areas much and for the most part reside in areas that are just as safe as Australia. So your argument is fairly irrelevant.

I would be interested to know how much people here who carry a concealed weapon have actually found their life in danger and needed to use there weapon in public? My guess is this apparent threat you Americans claim to be constantly under is more just paranoia. You’ve been raised to be in a constant state of fear from the big bad bogey men that are going to one day come into your quite suburban neighbourhoods, simply just to shoot you, obviously because they hate freedom, lol!

Fact is, illegal guns ‘can’ be purchased in Australia, we do have bikies and gangs as well. It’s just you have to interact with dangerous individuals, which means most of the typically isolated & socially awkward people who commit mass shootings simply have no access to weapons.

Can you name just 3 of the many mass murders that have occurred in the US where the weapon used was illegally imported into the US? Because I’ve been looking and I can’t find any, seems there nearly always purchased legally by the shooter. If nothing else, I think stricter gun laws would at least put an end to the mass shootings.

What does the right to bear arms even mean? Maybe I’ll move over their, get my US citizenship, so I can get a hold of a few nuclear warheads. It would be my right wouldn’t it?

There’s really no logical argument in allowing semi-automatic weapons to be sold to people with out strict licensing procedures. If you’re a stable up standing citizen, then there should be no issue with enacting stricter regulations.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: dreamingawake

Ok, I meant to say semi-automatic, but either way my point stands. I mean how much effort does it take to pull a trigger, they can still kill multiple people within seconds. I think you’ll find that just about everyone (except maybe hardcore criminals) who wasn’t raised in the US where it’s just seen as normal, are completely blown away by the fact that you can purchase a gun (let alone a semi-automatic) in some states without even needing to be licensed. Just crazy!

Also, don’t worry mate, we’re consumed with American culture over here, I do realise it’s a different environment. We’re a country of only 23 million compared to your (I think) 320 million and we don’t really have any areas that are simply unsafe to go (apart from maybe the odd street here and there). But then again, I doubt most right wing gun nuts venture into these areas much and for the most part reside in areas that are just as safe as Australia. So your argument is fairly irrelevant.

Because you doubt something, it makes an argument irrelevant? Okay, then why should one converse in reply?


"Right wing gun nuts " is an unfair assumption put on US gun owners. Many of us live in now unsafe or growing unsafe areas because of city sprawl. Whether once, a backward Hillbilly po dunk area or not, it's no longer becoming a safe haven for those who chose not to live in a dangerous city. It's not only that the downturn in the economy has seen a rise in crimes from robberies to assaults and drug related incidents as a way for people to obtain money illegally when they cannot work for it legally. And as the exodus from city life becomes more common, many population of areas change.

I would be interested to know how much people here who carry a concealed weapon have actually found their life in danger and needed to use there weapon in public? My guess is this apparent threat you Americans claim to be constantly under is more just paranoia. You’ve been raised to be in a constant state of fear from the big bad bogey men that are going to one day come into your quite suburban neighbourhoods, simply just to shoot you, obviously because they hate freedom, lol!

That is not funny at all really. The fear based program based around terrorist coming for people, as talked of in the past by sources, that is apparently happening in this country is very sickening and not well understood nor discussed. However, I wish it was paranoia fueled monsters more than anyone as opposed to having to live through the reality of the situation that we as citizens feel we must carry and concealed carry for our own safety. With that I am not talking about the big bad boogiemen of fear such as ISIL.

Citizens each have their own reasons for personal protection, and it's not all because of government(research democide instead) made boogiemen, probably less so for the majority, but because the country is becoming increasingly more dangerous then it already is as I discussed above.

Fact is, illegal guns ‘can’ be purchased in Australia, we do have bikies and gangs as well. It’s just you have to interact with dangerous individuals, which means most of the typically isolated & socially awkward people who commit mass shootings simply have no access to weapons.

Can you name just 3 of the many mass murders that have occurred in the US where the weapon used was illegally imported into the US? Because I’ve been looking and I can’t find any, seems there nearly always purchased legally by the shooter. If nothing else, I think stricter gun laws would at least put an end to the mass shootings.

"illegally imported into the US" ? Do you mean illegal obtained gun by mass shooters? I'm sure someone has more data on that then I do. Some cases of those have been traced back to guns stolen/taken from owners to commit the mass shootings.

What does the right to bear arms even mean? Maybe I’ll move over their, get my US citizenship, so I can get a hold of a few nuclear warheads. It would be my right wouldn’t it?

Please, nuclear warheads is a strawman. Source

There’s really no logical argument in allowing semi-automatic weapons to be sold to people with out strict licensing procedures. If you’re a stable up standing citizen, then there should be no issue with enacting stricter regulations.

Define the gun laws you wish upon our citizens? Define stable citizen? Because these days people are put onto terror watch lists while they have no history and are fully innocent. Speaking of mass shooters then, how many of them were legally aloud to purchase guns? How many were legally sound of mind when they did?