Guns in Chicago

The supreme court recently ruled that Chicago cannot ban handguns so the mayor is passing new laws to make it nearly impossible to procure them. Before this ruling, Chicago has a ban on all handguns. Irony? It had the top handgun crime rate in the nation.

Here is the problem: If a man is going to break the law, by let's say robbing a store, and risk jail, why would he not break a law banning the gun he did it with? What thoughts go through his mind? "Oh well, looks like I can't kill someone or steal today. After all I can't get a gun now". No. If a criminal is going to break a law with a gun, he will simply break the law and procure a gun. Hence why in Chicago, Texas in the past (believe it or not, Texas) and Washington D.c. the crime rates have have a direct correlation to banning guns or imposing heavy restrictions, and then the crime decreased when said laws were lifted.


Can anyone think of any other crimes made worse by government interference?


Here are some problems with the ordinances.




* problem 1: even IF the citizens buying the guns legally and registering them happened to be the main problem, it only takes ONE gun to kill someone, limiting how many they can have is the same logic as discussing whether to launch ten or fifteen nukes

*so make people have to drive out of Chicago to attend classes and use a range. Right. I’m sure the criminals will be practicing their crimes outside of Chicago too, just to be fair to the law abiding citizens.

*most criminals already have a tough time getting a gun legally when background checks are done appropriately.

*such extreme punishment for gun owners who just slip up in paperwork or lose track of time is ridiculous. Does anyone think about the fact that criminals with unregistered guns or stolen guns care about fines when they are already breaking the law by murdering and robbing people? These punishments will only deter good people from protecting themselves, or punish them for not filling out form 802-369 B- 12. But I bet the criminals love knowing that even with handguns now allowed in Chicago they are still safe to rob and kill as they wish for the most part.

To take it back to the core fundamentals, I am going to try to make a simple point. When your parents told you not to do something, did it make you want to do it more? Rated R movies, not going out with your friends, maybe not dating a specific person? Well, people have the innate craving to do as they are told not to.

In this case, "banning guns" makes the want for guns more apparent. The legality, as you mentioned, won't eliminate crime or handgun-owners. It puts a focus on such owners and can be used to officials' benefits. In saying this, what I mean is that the ban will deter some from owning handguns... But not all.

But isn't that the point of laws? Laws are created and enacted due to necessity (most of the time, as there are ignorant and pointless laws). If it wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a law. And, unfortunately, laws are meant to be broken. If there were nto people to break them, the law would be there for there is no necessity.

Saying that the ban would put a focus on the better-connected, more likely to commit heinous crimes, I make the point that the law will work to the benefit of those who created it. On one hand, the handgun-owner will be charged for owning the handgun.. Simply enough. And on the other, they are not the ones you want on the street in the first place.

The ban will deter minor criminals but not all. That is a given. Every law is passed for the people that will break it. If that number can be limited in any way, it is beneficial. You have to believe that said creators didn't think it would obliterate the crime rate and ownership of handguns... To think so would be pure ignorance. Like I said, laws are meant to be broken. Otherwise, the justice system would be obsolete.

Though I am in defense (partially) of the ban on handguns, I am a little fuzzy on the encroachment of the peoples' "right to bear arms."

are you familiar with our nation's prohibition era? By outlawing alcohol, a blackmarket sprung up. You can't protect people from themselves. The blackmarket let to both toxic liquor and gangs. Just like the drug war in latin america right now. Do you think that drug dealers would have to shoot each other over territory and their drug supplies if they could simply call the police as walmart can when it is robbed?

Gun control laws have raised crime in nearly every nation that has enacted them. Britain, Brazil, China, Japan, just to name a few, have all seen that with you outlaw guns only outlaws have guns.

Just think of it this way. If you are going to break the law by robbing a bank, why in the world would you worry about a gun law prohibiting you from buying a gun, when you are already planning to commit a crime with the gun to begin with? The only people who would follow the law are the ones who wouldn't be breaking laws to start with. It's simple.

Chicago, California, and Washinton all have seen an increase in gun crime during times that guns were banned or placed under heavy restrictions.

Many universities in colorado however saw a decrease in crime in general when guns were allowed to be carried and concealed- taking gun freedom even further.

You're restating what you originally said...

Quote :

If you are going to break the law by robbing a bank, why in the world would you worry about a gun law prohibiting you from buying a gun, when you are already planning to commit a crime with the gun to begin with?

Now, I agree with that... As I have said. What I was saying about the ban being a beneficial tool for the Chicago governing body is simply that those are the bad of the bad...

I do disagree with this statement:

Quote :

The only people who would follow the law are the ones who wouldn't be breaking laws to start with. It's simple.

Read as follows... (I'm skipping around a bit.)

Joe Schmoe minor criminal won't risk obtaining an illegal handgun; therefore, those who have the guns are those they needed to be watching. Not only are you taking the worst of the offenders off the street, but the ban is serving as a deterrent for said minor criminals. Not everyone is capable of obtaining an illegal handgun. Those who can, need sought out. Those most likely to commit crimes with the aid of a handgun (illegal or not) will obtain them, commit their crime and be put up with two (or more) offenses.

Like I said, laws are meant to be broken. They would have no purpose otherwise. Yes, I am "familiar with our nation's prohibition era." Yes, that form of the Black Market sprung up, so you say. Before saying the entirety of the Black Market became the monster it is because of this era is incorrect. Anything being sold and bought illegally in an open market is illegal. That started LONG before our prohibition era.

To speak on our own prohibition era and to relate to my previous post, prohibition gave birth to such things as speakeasies and the cultures that grew from or were related to them... Flappers, bootlegging, etc. Just quick, to switch gears and touch on Latin America... You asked if there would be the need to shoot each other over territory... Illegal business or not, greed is greed. Power and money are magnificent corruption tools.


--It's late and I have an early morning / long day ahead of me so my response will seem to be more abrupt and sped up. My apologies ahead of time.

Though SOME countries have tried to enact gun control laws and failed, doesn't mean all have. England has a wonderful policy. You carry a gun, you are reprimanded to the full extent of the law. No one is allowed to carry a gun and things work out. Those whom are caught are few and far between. It can be done. It just has to be enforced.

Quote :

Chicago, California, and Washinton all have seen an increase in gun crime during times that guns were banned or placed under heavy restrictions.

Dear, my previous post stated that when you are told you cannot have something, you want it all the more... Case and point. Of course crime rates will go up. Those most likely to carry a gun, will. Those, as I've said, are the worst of the worse. The ones able to obtain an illegal handgun will use it, yes. They fully intend on using it. Otherwise, why obtain it and risk getting caught with it? Crime rates will increase because owning a handgun is illegal.. Therefore, making it a crime. Think about that.

--With company coming in the morning for the Fourth of July, I anticipate your response yet don't know when I will return fire. (: