Wednesday, October 2, 2013

More on the Chicago Lie

The Propaganda Professor

But the gun culture wants to train its crosshairs only on those cities with strict gun regulations that have experienced an increase in violent crime.  Three years ago, Boston was all the rage, as 2010 saw a temporary (and relatively minor) jump in homicides for that city. But when levels returned to normal the following year, the gunsters turned their sights toward the Second City instead. But the focus is on only one particular year in Chicago — i.e., 2012. It’s not hard to figure out why if you take a look at the statistics for the few years leading up to that:


As even a casual glance makes clear, the city’s homicide tally had been on a rather steady downward slide for 20 years; thus, it appears that what happened last year was an anomaly rather than a trend. And this is borne out by the fact that the homicide rate for 2013 appears to have dived back down again, and has been on pace to be the lowest in about 40 years! No wonder you hear a lot more about 2012 than you do about 2013 or 2011. You also hear about isolated days or weekends of exceptional bloodshed much more than you hear about the overall trend (which is almost never).
This obsession with recent (though not too recent) crime statistics, and trying to tie them to “gun control” suggests that the gun lobby wants to give the impression that strict gun regulation is a recent development in Chicago. But far from it. Way back in 1982 the city passed one of the strictest of gun policies: an outright ban on handguns. And guess what? The streets haven’t become Armageddon Unlimited. In fact, at the time the ban went into effect, the city’s homicide rate had been on a steep escalator; but since then, it has dropped an average of 17 percent per year.
Homicide isn't the only story, of course; there are other crimes to consider. And how has the overall crime rate fared in the wake of the handgun ban? The short answer is down, down, down.  Every category of crime  has seen an overall decline in Chicago for at least 20 years or so. (Burglary has been holding steady for the past 10 years, but was on the decline in the preceding years just like everything else.)

37 comments:

  1. Same as the USA as a whole, but the good proffessor never mentions that.

    You also hear about isolated days or weekends of exceptional bloodshed much more than you hear about the overall trend (which is almost never).

    How about we make a deal. No more talking of isolated incidents. We all focus on long term trends only. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup just like the long term trend where the number of households with guns has dropped radically in the same period.

      Delete
    2. Actually Anon, there seems to be an indication that the numbers are going the other way. The surge in gun purchases have been explained as people who already own guns just buying more.
      However, recently its been noticed that the number of Firearm Owners ID , or FIOD cards have been increasing rapidly. Each person gets their own card which can be used for multiple purchases. So an increase in applications indicates an increase in the number of gun owners.

      "According to state police data, the number of total FOID card applications has been increasing steadily since 2010 with four months of record-breaking application numbers in 2012."
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/illinois-foid-card-wait-s_n_2965393.html

      Delete
    3. Yes, that's Illinois where recently they've enjoyed a major loosening up. In the rest of the country, it's the gun nuts buying more and more guns.

      ss, do you know anyone who owns fewer guns now than he did a year ago or five years ago?

      Delete
    4. Are you talking individuals? Or towns and such?

      Delete
    5. Mike,

      I know at least one individual with fewer, a lot with more, and several who are new gun owners that didn't have anything before.

      Yes, existing gun owners have bought more guns, but that isn't all there is to the rash of purchases; there are many people who had no guns and now have bought them.

      Also, we should remember that some "gun owners" were only such because they had inherited an old heirloom they never used. I've known of a lot of these types who fall into the category of "gun owners buying more guns," but who are only now getting off the fence and self identifying as gun owners, learning to shoot, getting training, and buying hunting guns, "scary" guns, or both to go along with that old, heirloom .22 or shotgun.

      Delete
    6. Yes, there are all kinds of gun owners, but generally, they increase the number of firearms they possess as time goes on. This accounts for the vast majority of gun sales.

      Delete
    7. You put a lot of stock in that unproved, unprovable assertion.

      Delete
    8. It may be unproved and unprovable, that's debatable, but do you deny it? Do you really not believe that the vast majority of gun bought each year are being bought by existing gun owners? Please don't ask what "vast majority" means, just try to answer the question for a change.

      Delete
    9. All I have to base my guess on is anecdotal evidence, but I'd guess that it's about 50-50 since I've seen as many people I know buy their first gun as buy another gun over the past couple of years--many of the new buyers have gone zero to AK.

      Delete
  2. Chicago makes the point that gun control doesn't work. That city has followed the national trend, but we see no extra change there, despite all the strict gun laws. That shows that something else is the cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sounds like you didn't even bother to read the Professor's post but instead went right into your NRA-approved knee-jerk response.

      Delete
    2. I read what you quoted. I've looked at his site before, and it doesn't impress me. But as I said, Chicago is only following the national trend, the trend that we see around the country where gun control isn't like that city's.

      Delete
    3. As I suspected. You didn't read the thing, yet you're pontificating about it like a typical close-minded gun-rights know-it-all.

      Delete
  3. The long term trend shows the hillbillies to be wrong, or lying. Seems Chicago is not the growing death market they claim. Figures, it's not the first time they lied to make a fake point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forget about the fact that more of us are owning and carrying guns while that trend is going downward?

      Delete
    2. Your point is that murders were up in Chicago. NOT!

      Delete
    3. Not at all. My point is that Chicago has a high murder rate, even though it has strict gun control. That provides evidence that gun control doesn't work.

      Delete
    4. But, Greg, it doesn't have a high murder rate, not compared to its own recent past. That's the lie you keep pushing.

      Delete
    5. So you wouldn't say that the United States had a "high murder rate" either because of its recent past?

      Delete
    6. Chicago's homicide rate is over three times the national average. I'd call that high. Wouldn't you?

      Delete
    7. You can't have it both ways, guys, at least not if you want to be honest. You keep harping on the declining murder rate overall, but at the same time you point to Chicago as a failure of gun control.

      Conveniently, you say the overall decline in the country is due to more guns and the "high" murder rate in Chicago is due to gun control.

      The truth is, as Greg himself pointed out, Chicago is declining just like the rest of the country. My belief is the declining murder rates are happening IN SPITE OF the guns, not because of them.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, if gun control worked, Chicago should show a much steeper decline than the rest of the country. That's the point. The fact that Chicago only follows the national trend, rather than having significantly better results demonstrates the fact that gun control doesn't achieve what you claim it does.

      Delete
    9. The fact that Chicago has a much higher gang problem means nothing? You got caught lying about Chicago, give it up before you prove you are a toothless grin hillbilly. Oh, that's right, you have already proved that over and over again.

      Delete
    10. Wrong again, Greg. Chicago has all the other factors related to violent crime in spades. When you add the guns coming in from Indiana and Ohio, you've got what you've got. Gun control has worked to a point but it needs to be much stricter and federally applied so the other nearby states will be affected.

      Delete
    11. False, Mikeb. Chicago is a test case. Your side got what it wants, more or less, in the laws of that city and mostly in the state of Illinois as well. And yet it didn't do anything. There is no clear case to be made here that gun control added in any way to the decline. The decline only follows the national trend, while the total rate remains well above the national average.

      Delete
  4. Actually the city government made the problem out to be guns. Every time they would be called to task for their inability to deal with the violent crime problem the city obviously has, they would say that all they need is one more gun law to fix the problem.
    The Chief of the Chicago PD only recently came out and announced a new strategy targeting gang violence, which is where the majority of violent crime in the city seems to be caused by. Whether he actually believes it is another story. Its entirely possible that the citizens of the city are actually noticing the man behind the curtain who isn't the great and powerful Oz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may be true about the city government wanting to blame gun availability, but the truth is gun availability is one of several factors. And it's one about which more could be done.

      Delete
    2. With 300,000,000+ guns in this country and thousands of miles of largely open borders, you really think that something could be done about gun availability?

      Delete
    3. How many of those 300,000,000+ guns do you think would be registered?

      Delete
    4. Of course it could? As Anonymous was suggesting, the bulk of those guns are in states that don't require a license to own or a registration of the firearm. Many of them have changed hands since that ATF form got filled out. This is the good news. You can't track those down. Pass your whims, and it will be Prohibition all over again.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, "good news" for aiding and abetting gun flow into the criminal world and for helping your hidden criminal friends stay hidden.

      Delete
    6. Again, How many of the 300,000,000+ do you think would be registered?

      Delete
    7. I was ignoring your question because it was a non sequitur. We were not talking about registering anything.

      But, since you insist, I'd say that if it became the law of the land that all guns must be registered about half of them would be. That's because about half of you lawful gun owners are really lawful.

      Delete
    8. "We were not talking about registering anything."

      But, I thought that was one of your foolproof steps to reducing availability.

      As for the idea that you'd get half of guns registered with half of gun owners going ahead and registering everything they have...right...that's not overly optimistic at all.

      Delete
  5. Kinda figures that if tens of thousands of people are leaving the city each year you should have less murders, eh?
    Maybe one of the bean counters here can cypher the percentages and see what that sez.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete