Skip to comments.The Supreme Court and the Truth About Chicago's Handgun Ban
Posted on 03/01/2010 3:34:23 PM PST by JohnRLott
In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nations capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.
When the Heller case was decided, Washingtons Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute."
But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washintons lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Violent crime dropped to a 43 year low in response to the Supreme Court striking down the DC gun ban. Bad bounce for the liberal wackos.
The premise of this article, that DC got guns and the death rate went down is totally false.
Certainly Heller won his case, but the DC council passed so many regulations and fee’s that few guns have been registered, other than Hellers.
First you still cannot buy a gun inDC, you must buy it elsewhere and have it given to you by the only dealer allowed to do so. You must pay a fee that is usually more than th cost of the gun, go to a safety class that doesnt exist, and after all that you can only take it home.
“gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
Yea but having a total ban on gun sales is different from various restrictions as the latter still results in the possibility that even though guns may be hard to acquire, someone is STILL going to be packing, there isn’t a law against it like before.
In general, just the threat of guns seems to be pretty effective most of the time.
Yes, but there is now enough evidence that citizens with guns lower crime rates. This has been proved by CCW laws in now over 40 states.
I do agree with your premise that the threat the victim will shoot back, is usually enough to discourage. If people don’t think it works, ask them to place a sign on their lawns “no guns in this house”.
What you have to remember is that it is PERCEPTION on the part of criminals that changes things, and now the PERCEPTION is that things are less safe for crime commission. The criminals know that not everyone is going to jump through DC's bureaucratic hoops to get and keep a gun, and any prosecution for NOT jumping through those hoops will probably be thrown out of court.
The gun control advocates want slavery of the public. That is the only reason they want gun control. If we are able to defend ourselves they can’t push us into slavery.
The wording of the 2A is about as UNAMBIGUOUS as it gets.
If the cities have the right to regulate the 2A, then why no the 1A and what people can say?
The issue is so clear cut it is painful.
.....One more thing, the left loves to point to the “right to privacy” they find in the Constitution to justify abortions. So why doesn’t this “right to privacy” apply to gun owners and what they can and cannot own?
The perception remains. Criminals won’t be emboldened by obtuse complications of law; they just went from “no guns” to “guns could be anywhere” and picked safer targets.
Post and read comments from Chicago Police officers.
This morning a Family of Three was found MURDERED in a Village very close to me. There's no news if it was a Murder-suicide, OR if it was a Home Invasion/Burglary. This area of the murder has houses worth about 1/2 a Million dollars.If I still lived in Chicago I couldn't do this. (we fled that cesspool in 75)
So right now, until more info is released on these murders, I have my Little 9mm Makarov by my side. And yep, no child lock is on it and the mag is full
(have a Mak attack today ;-) )
But I 'could' have a 'shotgun' or 'hunting rifle' IF they were on Chi's approved list of Long Guns. And IF I registered them annually (if you're a day late in renewing that's it, too bad, get rid of the gun - or 'else')
So Daley can kiss my asp. He thinks all of IL is HIS. And all of IL is a fricken zoo full of animals - like HIS city is.
I read those. Something popped right out at me, someone called Daley 'Shortshanks'. Only one person does that publicly :-)
In any case the Chi Cops detest Daley. I listen to the CPD Scanner. The comments about Daley get pretty funny. And there's never a 'knock it off' from a Sgt or Dispatcher. Maybe because the CPD has been working without a contract like for three years has a bit to do with that.
And there's no love for Daley's hand picked Supt, Jody Weiss either. He's a career Feeb.
Today, I sent this letter to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Daily Herald:
“I hope that the Supreme Court will overturn Chicago’s handgun ban because gun bans don’t decrease crime rates. In Chicago, no one, except police officers and aldermen are allowed to own handguns. Chicago has a higher murder rate (number of murders per 100,000 people) than New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, and Miami. New York City has more than twice as many people as Chicago, but, during four of the last six years, Chicago had more murders than New York. Chicago criminals go to other towns, buy guns, and bring them to Chicago, knowing that the law-abiding people cant defend themselves.
According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, by William Bennett, in 1960, about 10% of American babies were born out of wedlock. In 1991, the percentages were 65%, for Blacks; 30%, for Hispanics; and 25%, for Whites. When only one parent raises a child, its harder to teach the kid good morals, especially since many single mothers work two or three jobs, to make ends meet. When parents arent with their kids, many of their teenagers become criminals, causing them to shoot others and/or become shooting victims. Government cant do much to change this. Each American should be responsible and not conceive children until theyre married. Single fathers should show that care more about their kids by paying child support and spending more time with their kids.”
Almost two years ago, I sent a similar letter to the same papers, and it was printed by the Sun-Times.
You can’t have a semi-automatic handgun, IIRC. Revolvers only, and I don’t think even one has been licensed.
There’s something about the non-relationship between causality and correlation.
Correlation does not prove causality, but at times it sure indicates it warranting further analysis.
I agree with that. Lott is a pretty decent researcher, so I’d hope he has some evidence to take us past the coincidence factor.