It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chicago’s newly armed residents send murder rate plummeting

page: 10
108
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   

seagull
reply to post by interupt42
 


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.


The drone was just an example. If the bat crazy level reached Defcon 1 and wanted us gone their technology is so superior and heavy that they don't even have to be accurate. They have the capability to destroy cities one at a time all from remote locations.

Sending in troops is more for political and civilian causalities but in the SHTF scenario and the gloves come off you are not going to be seeing what is coming at you.

Our civilian weapons might have been a deterrent or nuance at one time (Possibly prior to WW1) but definitely not in the past few decades.

Like I said I'm for gun ownership but IMO its just silly to hear "take back our gov't" as a legit argument to keep our guns.

1. If our gov't doesn't hesitate to overtake countries with superior technology and millataries why would they have any fear of our guns?
2. What effect is a gun going to have against nuclear, biological chemical warfare, or remote controlled killing machines that are miles and miles away?

The gap in technological advances between civilian and millatary weapons are far to great to be overcome by experience.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

xuenchen

mugger
While it is good news that these citizens can finally exercise their 2nd amendment rights, the article is a bit misleading.
The first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns. I'm sure in time, we will have a better record of how this pans out.
www.theblaze.com...


It was the mass fear and panic by the petty criminals.

They're dumb, but they knew what was going to happen, and they were also scared some people might take things into their own hands ahead of time.

I know this. I live here.

And a very good friend of mine is a Chicago Cop.

The police saw a difference right away.

And of course, many criminals didn't actually know when the CCW law was going into effect.

Rumors were all around that it was immediate.

Like I said, the petty criminals aren't that smart. They don't pay attention to laws anyway.





That's really the whole point of the deterrent effect of CCW. Criminals do not know who or when their potential victim might be armed. Even though the law wasn't really in effect, the THOUGHT they might see more CCW and this was a possible deterrent.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

interupt42

seagull
reply to post by interupt42
 


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.


The drone was just an example. If the bat crazy level reached Defcon 1 and wanted us gone their technology is so superior and heavy that they don't even have to be accurate. They have the capability to destroy cities one at a time all from remote locations.

Sending in troops is more for political and civilian causalities but in the SHTF scenario and the gloves come off you are not going to be seeing what is coming at you.

Our civilian weapons might have been a deterrent or nuance at one time (Possibly prior to WW1) but definitely not in the past few decades.

Like I said I'm for gun ownership but IMO its just silly to hear "take back our gov't" as a legit argument to keep our guns.

1. If our gov't doesn't hesitate to overtake countries with superior technology and millataries why would they have any fear of our guns?
2. What effect is a gun going to have against nuclear, biological chemical warfare, or remote controlled killing machines that are miles and miles away?

The gap in technological advances between civilian and millatary weapons are far to great to be overcome by experience.






Look at over ten years of asymmetric warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. Determined individuals with small arms can indeed make things difficult for an advanced military even by foreigners on foreign soil much less your neighbors, relatives, and friends. It wouldn't be nameless, faceless strangers on the other end of the computer screen.

Armies do not work without logistics. Logistics do not work without civilians in the factories and the supply chains. If your enemy is the guy who makes your done work, how long does that advantage last?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Idiosonic
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


Yet, even in Australia your murder rate and violent crime rate is now higher, after banning most guns than it was years before. Thus, one cannot say that banning guns removes crime either.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The winter was stinking cold I don't care who you are it was cold and your common criminal hunkered down indoors like everybody else. Last weekend things were back to normal.




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

voidla
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Really weird you'd choose corrupt countries with bad governments, civil wars and poverty.

Kidding. It's not weird at all.

Here's the numbers for countries in Europe. Places with gun bans for the general population. (Farmers/hunters/special police excluded
Of course they all require serious background check. But you're probably against regulation as well..)

Some countries listed below have gun laws open for the general population.

Europe -

Belarus 4.9 (0.1 specifically for guns www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/belarus0
Bulgaria 2.0
Czech Republic 1.7
Hungary 1.3
Poland 1.1
Republic of Moldova 1.0
Romania 2.0
Russian Federation 10.2 (Allows guns to 18+)
Slovakia 1.5
Ukraine 5.2

Denmark 0.9
Estonia 2.5
Finland 2.2
Greenland 19.2 (Wow! Except we see these numbers are out of 100,000 and Greenland has only 56,000 people. 11 deaths in '09 gives us 19.2.)
Iceland 0.3
Ireland 1.2
Latvia 3.1
Lithuania 6.6
Norway 0.6
UK & NI 1.2 (0.23 for guns specifically www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)

Albania 4.4 (Guns aren't being regulated properly )
Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.5
Croatia 1.4
Greece 1.5
Italy 0.9
Malta 1.0
Montenegro 3.5
Portugal 1.2
Serbia 1.2
Slovenia 0.7
Spain 0.8
Macedonia 1.9

Austria 0.6
Belgium 1.7
France 1.1
Germany 0.8
Liechtenstein 2.8
Luxembourg 2.5
Monaco 0.0 (as of 2009)
Netherlands 1.1
Switzerland 0.7 - LOOK! SWITZERLAND! IT'S ON THE LIST! At 0.7! With strict gun regulation! Did you even read the report you're source is sourcing from? Or did you just copy paste?


Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9

China 1.0
Taiwan 3.2
Japan 0.4

I've used the source you did. I just didn't ignore the stable countries.
These numbers relate to "Intentional homicide, count and rate per 100,00 population (1995 - 2011).

I'm sure if you give me time I can find exact gun rates for the UK.

www.unodc.org... - Actual source. Not a Blogger.
edit on 5-4-2014 by voidla because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2014 by voidla because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2014 by voidla because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2014 by voidla because: (no reason given)


A lot of those countries do allow for civilian gun ownership, however. Guns can be owned in the home and used for hunting and self defense. The Czech Republic has even laxer laws than the US on guns in some aspects.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Bob Sholtz
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.



how will ads save even more lives?


is it because criminals are so civic minded that they read newspapers.

or is it since they are so molded by the values and morals that society decrees that they will
bend their wills in compliance??


are you a social worker or just someone who thinks basic human nature is good??


edit on 7-4-2014 by spirited75 because: how will ads save even more lives?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


So now the homicide rate will only be three times that of the UK, where people don't own handguns.

Law abiding citizens with guns aren't the issue, it's a system that allows criminals access to guns that causes deaths.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

NavyDoc

xuenchen

mugger
While it is good news that these citizens can finally exercise their 2nd amendment rights, the article is a bit misleading.
The first concealed carry permits were issued in late February, so the decrease in crime can’t yet be attributed to more people carrying guns. I'm sure in time, we will have a better record of how this pans out.
www.theblaze.com...


It was the mass fear and panic by the petty criminals.

They're dumb, but they knew what was going to happen, and they were also scared some people might take things into their own hands ahead of time.

I know this. I live here.

And a very good friend of mine is a Chicago Cop.

The police saw a difference right away.

And of course, many criminals didn't actually know when the CCW law was going into effect.

Rumors were all around that it was immediate.

Like I said, the petty criminals aren't that smart. They don't pay attention to laws anyway.





That's really the whole point of the deterrent effect of CCW. Criminals do not know who or when their potential victim might be armed. Even though the law wasn't really in effect, the THOUGHT they might see more CCW and this was a possible deterrent.



A lot of countries that have guns, don't allow hand guns. The UK is a prime example.

Handguns are great for crime, long guns (like rifles and shotguns) are hard to hide down the back of your pants when you want to rob a liquor store. Switzerland's guns are mainly rifles. I suspect when you find countries with guns but not so much gun crime it will be because they have mainly rifles and shotguns.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

NavyDoc

That's really the whole point of the deterrent effect of CCW. Criminals do not know who or when their potential victim might be armed. Even though the law wasn't really in effect, the THOUGHT they might see more CCW and this was a possible deterrent.

there is really no proof of that, crime in general has been dropping since 1992, and this has nothing to do with guns.

i believe crime has gone down due to the public's ability to assist law enforcement in capturing criminals through the internet and tv. more people are aware they can get their 15 minutes of fame by turning someone in for committing a crime.

no, this has to do with the growing risks to committing crime with all the camera phones and other systems around making it a challenge to break the law.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

demongoat

NavyDoc

That's really the whole point of the deterrent effect of CCW. Criminals do not know who or when their potential victim might be armed. Even though the law wasn't really in effect, the THOUGHT they might see more CCW and this was a possible deterrent.



there is really no proof of that, crime in general has been dropping since 1992, and this has nothing to do with guns.

i believe crime has gone down due to the public's ability to assist law enforcement in capturing criminals through the internet and tv. more people are aware they can get their 15 minutes of fame by turning someone in for committing a crime.

no, this has to do with the growing risks to committing crime with all the camera phones and other systems around making it a challenge to break the law.


where is your proof that "crime has gone down due to public ability to assist....internet and tv"

"there is really no proof of that..."

a majority of the studies that come out from professional
survey and pollsters conclude that crime has come down
since 1992 due to increased possession of firearms by law abiding citizens.

can you put that in your pipe and smoke it???



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Xtrozero

BTW when Russia steamrolls Europe like Germany did, I would bet they wished they had guns.... Oh I forgot, that could never happen today...my bad.


If this is sarcasm, then you suggest that with more guns in the civilian society of Ukraine could have fended off the Russians, the fact is they didn't want to fend of the Russians as:
1. most of them wanted the Russians there
2. as fighting the Russians would have been suicidal
3. it would have given the Russians an actual reason to send more troops into the country and be more violent in their actions possibly venturing further into Ukraine.

Strangely enough the Ukrainian army had firearms yet they didn't dare use them against the Russians for the above reasons.

It's not like they didn't have enough firearms in the country anyway to form some sort of civil resistance against the Russians.

Source:www.gunpolicy.org...


Civilian Possession
Estimates of the number of guns in private hands range from 2.2 to 6.3 million. These suggest a median rate of 6.6 firearms per 100 people, although the higher figure would yield a rate of 13 per 100. In 2005, Ukraine ranked 84th in the world for the number of civilian firearms per capita.


There were guns used in Kiev and the wider Ukraine against the yanukovych government police forces.

Source:www.globalpost.com...


"The majority of the gunfire seemed to be coming from police lines," said BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse. "But not all of it." Gatehouse said he saw one of the shooters "wearing one of the protesters' green helmets," and shooting from an open window in Hotel Ukraine.


The fact as stated before is that nobody wanted to fire on the Russians and therefore your point that an armed society would help stop an invasion is invalid.

Oh yeah, you said about Germany steamrolling Europe yet in fact there was civil armed resistance to fight against the Germans in WW2, the fighters were very brave peoples and there actions did help bring about the downfall of Nazism but at the end of the day it didn't stop an invasion.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   

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)


Saying we as a representation of the whole?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

interupt42
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.


Well in a all out war, no restraints, no one is really safe wouldn't you say. Is that your only scenario? How about Conventional warfare? Why does China keep 500 million soldiers? My point is there are no foot holds with 300 million guns in civilian hands to augment, but I guess they could bomb us back a few 100 years as we put them back to the stone age, but I really doubt that scenario would happen.

I happen to be a drone pilot and I have 28 years in the military I know what we can and can't do and what would most likely not happen. My main point was that our civilian gun force has been a deterrent to anyone with intent to invade us. I'm not saying our civilian force is some military main weapon, but it sure played into any scenario our adversaries ran.



edit on 7-4-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 




The shootings being down ought to send a very large hint to the anti0gun crowd

But, the decrease occurred before anybody had a permit. Is the hint that something else was responsible?


Winter?

I would think we would need to give it a year or two.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



of course the criminals closely follow the news to
determine exactly how many CCW's are issued don't they.
The press about the CCW's would have a deterrent
effect if not just in the imagination of the criminals.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   

DodgyDawg

The fact as stated before is that nobody wanted to fire on the Russians and therefore your point that an armed society would help stop an invasion is invalid.


Really? You do know that Russia's Black sea fleet is stationed in Crimea, so it wasn't much of an evasion since they were already there, and you are right that Crimea is very loyal to Russia, but Ukraine is a different story. They could give Russia a hard time and you are suggesting another 10 million AKs in civilian hands would have zero effect on Russian forces.

I don't see Drones, nukes, bio weapons lining the border. I see soldiers and equipment, that too just happen to have AKs...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Back on topic,

One would think that home invasions and violent crime by strangers will go down. If I was a criminal I would not enter a house with the chance that a gun would be waiting for me, and likewise I would not mug someone if there was a chance that I could get shot.

Before concealed weapon permits, it was basically 100% chance that a criminal would not get shot by the honest population. Their only fear was other criminals and the police. Criminals will still shoot criminal so I'm not sure how to remove that number from the equation as whether permits reduce crime or not.

It takes time to change even for the bad guys...As they get shot and threaten they will rethink what is considered a safe crime to commit. I would think a better number is how many bad guys will be shot this year by permit guns and how many crimes directly prevented by someone pulling a gun.

I really do not see big murder numbers dropping anytime soon since most were bad guys killing bad guys with innocent bystanders sometimes getting in the way. This will most likely not change much...



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 


The press about the CCW's would have a deterrent effect if not just in the imagination of the criminals.
A deterent before the law was passed? Before there was any chance of legally carrying a concealed weapon?

The law passed in July 2013. Handgun related crimes:
Here's January - June:
2011: 2,053
2012: 2,076
2013: 1,704

Homicides:
2011: 188
2012: 254
2013: 180


Why were there more murders in February and March of 2014 than in 2013? Did criminals become less worried in those months for some reason?
2013: February - 13, March - 15
2014: February - 16, March - 17

Seems a bit premature to credit CC with a reduction of gun related violence.

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


more than likely they killed more of their relatives
that they were cooped up with during the cold weather.




top topics



 
108
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join