Chicago Crime Rate Drops As Concealed Carry Applications Surge

a reply to: dreamingawake

"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.

See that’s a perfect example, you mention drug related incidents (I’m assume you mean drug dealing) as being a direct danger to yourself. What happens when some paranoid anti-vigilant hero decides some stupid kid selling or buying drugs is a danger to there safety and pulls out there semi-automatic and lays four shots into him without even thinking about it. Maybe a few bullets hit some little kids playing on the street because the dude is in such a paranoid panic about his perceived safety.

That’s the problem, how can some average citizen who’s got themselves all worked up from watching fox news all day long hearing about how bad crime is and how the sky is going to cave in at any second be trusted to make a snap decision of whether a random altercation is a threat to them or not?

I moved to a regional city not so long ago and am constantly lectured by paranoid rednecks about how it’s too dangerous to walk the streets because of the meth heads and Afghani refugees that are moving in, yet I go for walks at all hours of the night (I’m a really bad sleeper and enjoy the calmness of empty peaceful streets) and have never been bothered apart from some drunk hicks who threw a beer bottle at me once. I dodged it, flipped them the bird and kept moving, big deal!

People just seem to love to exaggerate perceived dangers.

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.

Hold on, I thought carrying concealed weapons was making the streets safer; you seem to have contradicted yourself.

"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.

No, I mean illegally imported, since a gun that was legally purchased in the US and is then stolen by a criminal is usually a direct result of the lax gun laws. Since strict gun laws usually involves having your weapons locked in a secure safe at all times, rather than having it just laying around in your sock draw or under the bed.

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.

Well it’s extremely rare for me to say I agree with the government. But in this circumstance I think the Australian government has done a good job in how it enacted our strict gun laws. 1) You need a very good reason to own a gun, self defense is not considered a good reason. 2) You need an official (like a doctor or a police officer) who has known you for at least a year to confirm you are stable and of good character. 4) You have to be an active member of a gun club 5) you have to keep your weapon locked and secured at all times when not in use 6) Semi-automatics are for the most part not allowed (or at least extremely hard to obtain legally) and obviously automatic assault rifles are out right illegal, but that’s just common sense.

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.

Because there is a BIG difference between automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. That's like talking about driving a car and using a semi-truck as an example when describing how a vehicle handles. Sure there is a chance someone would end up driving a semi-truck, but most people are never going to step foot in one and using it as an example teaches people nothing. Like I said, if you can't be bothered to learn the correct terminology (especially the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon) then don't weigh in on these debates.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did learn the correct terminology, which I thought I made perfectly clear in one of my past posts, maybe you should read though the thread before weighing in on the debate, lol.

It was simply benign grammatical error. if anything, not being some gun fanatic just makes my observation of the topic more credible since I don't have an invested interest. Not to mention that attacking me for using the wrong terminology gives no credibility to your stance on the issue.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did learn the correct terminology, which I thought I made perfectly clear in one of my past posts, maybe you should read though the thread before weighing in on the debate, lol.

It was simply benign grammatical error. if anything, not being some gun fanatic just makes my observation of the topic more credible since I don't have an invested interest. Not to mention that attacking me for using the wrong terminology gives no credibility to your stance on the issue.

Actually you do have a vested interested or you wouldn't participate in the thread at all. As you say "evil ignorance."

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Attacking you? I didn't attack you. I just said you looked foolish for using the wrong words and its true. Don't get mad because you say something dumb and get called out on it. Just acknowledge your mistake and move on.

People aren't carrying legal concealed automatic weapons. Heck they aren't even carrying illegal concealed automatic weapons. Most handguns are semi-automatic. And FINALLY, guns aren't used to just kill people. People hunt with them, go practice shooting with them, clean them, and a whole slew of other things. Heck you could put an empty magazine into a gun and use it to intimidate someone without even pulling the trigger. These are ALL things you can do with a gun that doesn't end with another human injured or dead.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did learn the correct terminology, which I thought I made perfectly clear in one of my past posts, maybe you should read though the thread before weighing in on the debate, lol.

It was simply benign grammatical error. if anything, not being some gun fanatic just makes my observation of the topic more credible since I don't have an invested interest. Not to mention that attacking me for using the wrong terminology gives no credibility to your stance on the issue.

Actually you do have a vested interested or you wouldn't participate in the thread at all. As you say "evil ignorance."

Maybe you wouldn't concern yourself in something you have no invested interest in, but I have a curious mind and enjoy pondering many different subjects that don't effect me personally, sometimes very passionately. Discrimination against other races, wars in foreign countries and gay rights just to name a few.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah sorry, I probably could have used a different phrase than "attack". I wasn't offended or angry, though.

But the little mistake of saying auto as apposed to semi-auto has now been resolved. Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Sure. I believe that people having the ability to protect themselves makes them safer. Just because someone is armed, doesn't mean they are looking to use that weapon at any chance they get. Keep in mind that throughout history, before guns came on the scene, the populace at large was unable to shake the bonds of tyranny that was held on them because it takes a lifetime to train someone to use a sharp weapon effectively (sword, spear, bow and arrow, etc). Most people spent their lives learning a trade or how to farm and could never hold their own in a sword fight with a soldier. The populace could have taken arms, but a well trained force, which a government had plenty of, could have squashed them in no time. When guns entered the scene, it leveled the playing field. Finally weapons that require little training to use effectively (but a lot of training to master) gave the people something to keep tyrannical governments in check. The American Revolution would have been a footnote in history if the Americans didn't have guns and had to use swords instead.

People always make the mistake that the government is looking out for your best interests. That is wrong. The government looks out for ITS best interests. The only people who care about your best interests are you and your family. If you cannot defend yourself from threats, you are nothing. Relying on government to do it for you is only going to cause problems (not to mention the police always show up to a crime scene AFTER it has occurred unless they were lucky enough to be driving by and witness it). It just makes sense.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did learn the correct terminology, which I thought I made perfectly clear in one of my past posts, maybe you should read though the thread before weighing in on the debate, lol.

It was simply benign grammatical error. if anything, not being some gun fanatic just makes my observation of the topic more credible since I don't have an invested interest. Not to mention that attacking me for using the wrong terminology gives no credibility to your stance on the issue.

Actually you do have a vested interested or you wouldn't participate in the thread at all. As you say "evil ignorance."

Maybe you wouldn't concern yourself in something you have no invested interest in, but I have a curious mind and enjoy pondering many different subjects that don't effect me personally, sometimes very passionately. Discrimination against other races, wars in foreign countries and gay rights just to name a few.

Curiosity is good for expanding your knowledge base. I wouldn't pretend to tell you how to make laws, rights, or constitutional principles in your country. I don't live there, know the culture, or even pretend to know your laws. Also take note this topic is one of the most passionate you will find on ATS , we value our rights in this country given to us by the founders and the constitution. The reason the distinction of auto versus semi auto is so important is the government politicians and media have for years thrown this term around as a scare tactic to the public in order to sway opinion. When in reality you can't buy one in most states, and those that do require a tax stamp, fingerprints, and deeper background checks. When the numbers don't bare their anti gun mantra, then the easiest thing to do is lie to the public, and fabricate news reports.

If the idea was truly to save lives then the people wanting further gun restrictions would start with the many things that kill people more than guns. You appear to be pushing the same pretzel logic as the others when in fact doctors and pharmacists mistakes kill 4 times as many people every year than guns do. Just one example, do some research and find out for yourself. Then come back and tell me how guns are the leading cause of death and taking mine away will make me safer.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Curiosity is good for expanding your knowledge base. I wouldn't pretend to tell you how to make laws, rights, or constitutional principles in your country. I don't live there, know the culture, or even pretend to know your laws.

I think you’ll find that most aussies aren’t so sensitive and could care less if someone from another country had an opinion on our laws and culture.

Plus if you had any kind of knowledge of what’s happening outside of the US (I know a lot of you think you’re the centre of the universe) then you would realise that Australia is constantly surrounded by American culture. We have fox news, CNN and Bloomberg on cable, just now I’m flicking though the channels and every thing on the TV are American shows and mostly American stations, all my favourite movies and music is American. Plus (although this may shock you) I have a internet connection and know what your guns laws are.

My point being is that before you tell me I have no right to have an opinion, you must realise (sorry realize) that I know far more about you than you know about me.

You appear to be pushing the same pretzel logic as the others when in fact doctors and pharmacists mistakes kill 4 times as many people every year than guns do. Just one example, do some research and find out for yourself. Then come back and tell me how guns are the leading cause of death and taking mine away will make me safer.

This may shock you dude, but a lot of countries have doctors and pharmacists who make mistakes. But there are no 1st world countries that have anywhere near the same rate of gun violence as in the US. Two wrongs don’t make are right.

What gets me about gun loving Americans is that they always carry on about how important there rights and freedoms are but then don’t seem to mind that your government locks more people away than any other country on the face of the earth, even more than China and Russia.

Pretty shallow tactics though I got to say. You can't pick apart my logic, so instead you just tell me since you know nothing about my country, I must know nothing about yours and there for don't have the right to an opinion. Kind of like an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: MarlinGrace

People are a lot more polite now too. I like it.

Excuse me ma'am...I see you have a .45 under your bra...Can I carry your groceries?

Peace

Yes its a common miss conception that people were wild in the old west days.

While that may be true out in the woods, there was never a more polite and civilized society as one where every man women and child had a gun on their hip.

And a good day to you sir.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Curiosity is good for expanding your knowledge base. I wouldn't pretend to tell you how to make laws, rights, or constitutional principles in your country. I don't live there, know the culture, or even pretend to know your laws.

I think you’ll find that most aussies aren’t so sensitive and could care less if someone from another country had an opinion on our laws and culture.

Plus if you had any kind of knowledge of what’s happening outside of the US (I know a lot of you think you’re the centre of the universe) then you would realise that Australia is constantly surrounded by American culture. We have fox news, CNN and Bloomberg on cable, just now I’m flicking though the channels and every thing on the TV are American shows and mostly American stations, all my favourite movies and music is American. Plus (although this may shock you) I have a internet connection and know what your guns laws are.

My point being is that before you tell me I have no right to have an opinion, you must realise (sorry realize) that I know far more about you than you know about me.

You appear to be pushing the same pretzel logic as the others when in fact doctors and pharmacists mistakes kill 4 times as many people every year than guns do. Just one example, do some research and find out for yourself. Then come back and tell me how guns are the leading cause of death and taking mine away will make me safer.

This may shock you dude, but a lot of countries have doctors and pharmacists who make mistakes. But there are no 1st world countries that have anywhere near the same rate of gun violence as in the US. Two wrongs don’t make are right.

What gets me about gun loving Americans is that they always carry on about how important there rights and freedoms are but then don’t seem to mind that your government locks more people away than any other country on the face of the earth, even more than China and Russia.

Pretty shallow tactics though I got to say. You can't pick apart my logic, so instead you just tell me since you know nothing about my country, I must know nothing about yours and there for don't have the right to an opinion. Kind of like an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

The major flaw in your theory is that most gun violence happens in "Gun Free Zones" if you remove the gun violence that happens in areas where the government has outlawed guns then it becomes almost nil compared to the public.

So the areas of high gun violence are the area where no guns are allowed, which shoots a hole in your theory, in fact its 100% turned around, more guns less law breaking and violence, proven over and over by facts, not leftist conjecture.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Explain this then:
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

I'm tired of foreigners telling Americans that we have a gun violence problem. The laws on the books we ALREADY have are working. We don't need more and we don't need you telling us we need more.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

We have free speech in this country and you are welcome to say anything you want, and I will fight for your right to say it, if I find what you have to say valuable thats another story, but I support your right to say it.

"This may shock you dude, but a lot of countries have doctors and pharmacists who make mistakes. But there are no 1st world countries that have anywhere near the same rate of gun violence as in the US. Two wrongs don’t make are right."

You are missing the point if it was lives you are interested in saving then why not start where you would have the greatest effect? Again I will ask so you don't continue to embarrass yourself, do some research. Violence is violence gun or not and we are hardly leading the world in violence. The comparison you make would be explained the same as saying your country is the largest consumer of Crown Lager, of course it is thats where it is made, but it doesn't mean you lead the world beer drinking.

It is not wrong for me to own guns, it's a constitutional right afford me by the country's founders. Unlike Australia where they bought them back and took them away.

You might want to check with humanrights.org before you say China locks up less people than we do. At least when we lock you up in this country you get a trial, and it was for something you did wrong. Not for political dissidence.

Not shallow tactics shallow thinking on your part. You will always have the right to free speech and an opinion here, again rather I find it valuable is another story.

I haven't been able to read all this thread so excuse if this has been mentioned. Ours guns will not be much help as LEO has another brand new "toy" now....supposedly non-lethal and harmless. It is called the Retinal Obfuscation Gun...called Z=Ro. It causes "compliance" by rendering folks blind for around 15 to 20 minutes. Just great. The Sonic weapon wasn't enough...now, a weapon that produces blindness...how can anyone aim or shoot a gun that way. Should circumstances arise where we, as citizens, have a need to protect ourselves from excessive force or aggression by LEO or Military, (say, forced vaccines as an example or being forced to go to a fema camp for whatever reason), we can be blinded. No way to defend with a gun under those circumstances so the gun wouldn't mean much. Just great.


They say it is non-lethal and harmless, they said that about the tasers and yet over 500 deaths have occurred. What about a kid/baby nearby...could they withstand the weapon. It is all a matter of degrees and how far the dial gets turned I would think and who is using it and why. Being blinded would render trying to use guns as useless.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your link

There also is debate about the extent of gun ownership in the U.S., although no disagreement that the U.S. has more civilian firearms, both total and per capita, than other nations. Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes.

In other words the US isn't inherently more violent than other countries, they just have more gun crimes due to there lax laws.

The major flaw in your theory is that most gun violence happens in "Gun Free Zones" if you remove the gun violence that happens in areas where the government has outlawed guns then it becomes almost nil compared to the public.

So the areas of high gun violence are the area where no guns are allowed, which shoots a hole in your theory, in fact its 100% turned around, more guns less law breaking and violence, proven over and over by facts, not leftist conjecture.

That's some flawed logic right there. Criminals are obviously incapable of crossing "Gun Free Zones" , right?

You might want to check with humanrights.org before you say China locks up less people than we do. At least when we lock you up in this country you get a trial, and it was for something you did wrong. Not for political dissidence.

Yeah, like how they're trying to lock julian assange up for life for expressing freedom of speech, or how black people are far more likely to be incarcerated for far longer as a white person who commits the same crime, that's true justice right there mate.

We have free speech in this country and you are welcome to say anything you want, and I will fight for your right to say it, if I find what you have to say valuable thats another story, but I support your right to say it.

You guys remind me of both your government and mine. They love ranting on about how we have freedom of speech, but if you actually try to express it they become hostile. Funny that!

Anyway, I'm so over it. I was just looking for a stimulating and intellectual debate, but all I seem to getting is aggressiveness, with coy comments about how I don't have the right to give my opinion.

Nice!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Wait. I didn't write the rest of that post that you are quoting...

And to your point. No crap America has more gun crime than other countries. Guns are legal here! Obviously that is going to be the case. What a dumb point. I see you failed to address the decreasing gun violence statistic and jumped straight to comparing America to other countries point that most anti-gun foreigners do.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

That’s the problem, how can some average citizen who’s got themselves all worked up from watching fox news all day long hearing about how bad crime is and how the sky is going to cave in at any second be trusted to make a snap decision of whether a random altercation is a threat to them or not?

Because some of us moved from violent cities to be safer in the first place, we've experience first hand, so it's not all Fox news watchers.

I moved to a regional city not so long ago and am constantly lectured by paranoid rednecks about how it’s too dangerous to walk the streets because of the meth heads and Afghani refugees that are moving in, yet I go for walks at all hours of the night (I’m a really bad sleeper and enjoy the calmness of empty peaceful streets) and have never been bothered apart from some drunk hicks who threw a beer bottle at me once. I dodged it, flipped them the bird and kept moving, big deal!

In that cause, ya they seem a bit paranoid because of the change in their area. But I just don't see how it related to everyone's situation who supports the right to carry, because each is different.

Hold on, I thought carrying concealed weapons was making the streets safer; you seem to have contradicted yourself.

?
The Op says in Chicago, Illinois the crime rates have dropped, no the whole of the US. Let's hope it helps elsewhere because it is too much.

Namely these ones that I want to elaborate more on,

1) You need a very good reason to own a gun, self defense is not considered a good reason.

Self defense seems a valid enough reason especially if one needs protection from an aggressor(stalker, domestic abuse, etc) What would be a good reason if self defense is not? Hunting for food maybe?

2) You need an official (like a doctor or a police officer) who has known you for at least a year to confirm you are stable and of good character.

Knowing an officer, Dr., etc per year seems a bit excessive? As mentioned and as we've seen some of the mass shooters for example were well regarded to be sound of mind.

5) you have to keep your weapon locked and secured at all times when not in use

If not mistaken some areas of the US were stating they wanted to require home checks on if the weapons were locked and secured. That however, brought up privacy issues, such as violating the Fourth Amendment.



Thanks for your view.

a reply to: AmenStop

most of the time it was the cities where people were armed.

country sherrifs made sure that passer's through would turn their guns in at his office while they were in town.

it was probably because it made a barfight easier to break up.

If only in the UK you had the chance to defend yourself without going down for assault.. ok, so we don't have 'civil' fire arms, but surely deterring criminality by publicly beating them to a pulp before the po po show up is a win-win right?

watch the void.