Verified answer

Couldn't agree with you more.

according to the 2006 IL UCR.

Illinois had a population of 12.8 million w/ a murder rate of 6.1/100K (780)

Chicago had 22.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 60% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 16.4/100K

Cook County had 41.4% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 73.6% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 10.83/100K

The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita increased 4.4% and 4.9% respectively while arrest numbers and rates dropped over 18% from '05 to '06.

If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.14

Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 2.74.

So far this year, murders are up 18%. (summer of ’08)

And where are the strictest gun laws?

http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIENDS

Strict gun control can reduce gun crime. The results in Britain and Australia have proved this. Since those two countries banned private gun ownership crimes with guns have declined sharply. So great less guns equals less crime in general right. The crime picture in those two countries actually shows the exact opposite. While gun crime has gone down, assault, burglary, robbery, rape, and even murder overall has skyrocketed.

That depends. If you just do it for a short period of time and in a short area (one city) it won't work very well since it's still easy for criminals to obtain guns illegally from other places.

If you really COULD keep guns out of the place by some magic force, It would probably help to some degree.

Sure, everyone will be using knives instead, but it's easier to survive a stab then a shot

Hey Other,

criminals will always get guns. We are talking about law biding citizens. 99% of America. The good guys.

If you read why the gore fathers made the second amendment.

Its so that if the Obama government tries to take over, and gets to big and corrupt. It is the duty of every able bodied America to raise up in armed rebellion and restore the government back to it being represented by we the people.

We have the right to protect ourselves from harm, Either by persons, or governments.

that's funny how some people are fighting fiercely against gun control. If guns were not allowed would Virginia Tech massacre occurred? Would people be dying off the streets where gangs make their territory often with gun bought in other states. It is true that if you don't live in a certain place you don't see the need for it. That's why I think some places should impose their own gun control as the environment dictates.

Hmm....I like what Obama has said about guns. He has said that he understands the value of the 2nd Amendment. But don't tell me we can't keep guns out of the hands of repeat offenders and criminals..." So, if there's a way to allow law abiding citizens to have access to and purchasing ability and use of their firearms while restricting those who have lost that privilege or should never have it in the first place what's wrong with that? For instance, if it were required that you had to sit through a short safety class when purchasing any gun or you had to register every purchase with the government and you've got nothing to hide, how is that a problem? These solutions don't take away illegal guns, but they do help law enforcement to know who has what guns and establishes a traceable history for each firearm.

From the book Freakonomics: The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn't even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani's house than in gunplay at Amy's.

The best gun control is using both hands.

You're right. Gun control would not reduce the murder rate. Murder is an act of passion, and that passion can't be quelled by lack of a firearm. What can be prevented, however, is the deaths of innocent children who are hit by stray bullets, or children who accidentally shoot themselves (such as below).

Am I wrong?

BTW: Violence in Chicago did not increase as a result of changes to gun laws. The gun law legislation was a response to the increase in violence. Anytime the economy is bad and people lose jobs, violence increases. That's just the way it works.

First of all I don't think that 3 million crimes are thwarted through civilian use of firearms; secondly nothing justifies the carrying of a gun by a civilian.

Look at the statistics!- showing homicide by a firearm is the highest in the US than in other countries.(except in countries where there is war).

It is better to invest the money that gun lobbyists use to promote the "right to carry a weapon" in to better housing and health care for the people.

Look at Chicago this year -- strictest gun laws in the nation, yet the murder rate is through the roof and has been since the gun ban went into effect. Its not about reducing crime, its about keeping the citizens subservient to their local government. And they keep electing Comrade Daley anyway.