Monday, June 7, 2010
Politics / Clout City / News Weis Struggles to explain how the gun ban is working
Posted by Mick Dumke on 06.07.10 at 01:25 PM
Top city officials still aren't saying exactly what they think Chicago's handgun ban is accomplishing. I'm wondering whether they can't—or just won't because sticking up for the ban gives them cover for their inability to cope with our city's persistent violence.
Police superintendent Jody Weis held a press conference at police headquarters Sunday morning to announce that total crime from the beginning of the year through the end of May was down 5.8 percent from 2009. He told the seven members of the media present (it's amazing that many of us showed up since the police department didn't e-mail notice of the event till 10 PM Saturday) that crime has dropped from the year before for 17 consecutive months.
But some of the other stats Weis disclosed—and his discussion of several recent shootings—were far more revealing.
For starters, Weis acknowledged that murders were up slightly, from 158 in 2009 to 164 this year. "Homicides continue to challenge us," he said.
But he said that the department is aggressively using "analytics" to identify crime hot spots and mobilize additional officers there. "We've been relatively successful since putting these new methods in place."
It's not clear exactly what's new about these methods, since the department has employed some version of what used to be called the Special Operations Section in hot spots for years—though the old SOS was disbanded after a series of high-profile misconduct allegations against some of its officers.
Nevertheless, the superintendent went on to highlight some of the department's other successes, including weapon seizures. From the beginning of 2010 through the end of May, Weis said, Chicago police had confiscated 3,513 weapons—an average of about 22 a day. Among them were 130 assault weapons, or about one a day.
This is a good thing, Weis told us—the numbers are up from 2009. But he obviously couldn't explain how the gun ban was stopping the flow of arms into the city. When a reporter asked him about the ban, he resorted to the company line. "We're optimistic—we're hoping the Supreme Court will uphold the current ordinance," he said.
He went on to cite a disturbing recent murder as an example of why the ban is important—a woman shot to death Saturday in the Calumet Heights neighborhood after a dispute over a card game.
"People get upset, they get angry—if that gun wasn't in the house there's probably an excellent chance that woman would be alive today," Weis said. "It's a perfect example of the dangers of having a weapon inside of a home with folks who in my opinion do not have the emotional maturity and stability to have such a weapon inside the house."
The superintendent wasn't willing to weigh in on the case of the 80-year-old west-side man who shot and killed an armed intruder a couple of weeks ago. The man's wife has said he saved their lives. But by owning the gun he was breaking the law.
"We're still gathering the evidence on that," Weis said.
Nor was Weis able to provide evidence that the ban is helping reduce the number of people shot. Shootings are classified as aggravated batteries, which are down 6.2 percent from last year, but that category also includes incidents involving knives, bats, and even hands and feet.
A reporter asked him how the number of shootings in 2010 compares with that for 2009.
"I'd have to get back to you," he said. "I know they were pretty close to last year, but I don't remember if they were up or down."
After the Q&A ended, police department spokesman Roderick Drew looked up the shooting stats for us. He said that through May there had been 661 aggravated batteries involving firearms—up 2.4 percent from last year.
That's an average of more than four shootings a day.
Comments (41)
Showing 1-41 of 41
like
dislike
That gun ban is really protecting us. Gun deaths continue unabated even though according to Daley and Weis no one should have a hand gun (except them, cops and a few other "important" humans whose lives are apparently worth more than most) and we hope the SCOTUS upholds this effective social tool.
And good that all those assault rifles were scooped up...since so many homicides in Chicago and the US are carried out by M16s and the like.
What a joke. It's time to acknowledge reality. Like drugs, making guns illegal means that only the bad guys will have control over their distribution.
"Like drugs, making guns illegal means that only the bad guys will have control over their distribution."
Do you think that all guns should be legal?
"People get upset, they get angry—if that gun wasn't in the house there's probably an excellent chance that woman would be alive today."
Of course Weis doesn't mention whether or not the gun used was purchased legally. Or how the SCOTUS ruling to uphold Chicago's gun ban will prevent shootings like this in the future, since the current gun ban obviously did nothing to keep a gun from being present at this residence.
"Or how the SCOTUS ruling to uphold Chicago's gun ban will prevent shootings like this in the future, since the current gun ban obviously did nothing to keep a gun from being present at this residence."
Well, I guess we should throw out all the laws because people still break them...
You gonna play nice this time FGFM? If so I'd like to discuss. If not, I'll wait until a grown up makes an interesting comment or asks a question and I will participate. Your track record is suspect.
Short answer, no, I don't think that all guns should be legal.
It's like we're a freakin island here!
Why is it so hard to get people to even look at the reality of what happens in the rest of the country, where it's not only legal to have a handgun in your home, for protection, but usually you can carry one on your person if you pass the requirements for concealed carry.
Where's the oft promised "bloodbath" in Grand Rapids, Des Moines, or the shootings over parking spaces in Minneapolis, St. Louis and Boise the Brady Group always promises and never delivers on, in any other city you can think of outside of Illinois or Wisconsin?
Only in Chicago do we have people that start with the assumption that the citizens here are all too stupid and too violent to be trusted the way they are everywhere else?
Daley is an arrogant bully, with thuggish approach to governance and Weiss is his designated meat puppet extraordinaire.
"Only in Chicago do we have people that start with the assumption that the citizens here are all too stupid and too violent to be trusted the way they are everywhere else?"
From what I understand, it's very difficult to get a permit for a handgun in New York City unless you are connected.
"From what I understand, it's very difficult to get a permit for a handgun in New York City unless you are connected."
True, a handful of "May Issue" states like New York and California use political connections and campaign contributions to determine who is entitled to a permit. Howard Stern, Don Imus etc. have no problem getting a carry permit.
Daley would love that system. It's what he already does, but with a broader and more profitable audience.
In California there are several lawsuits in the works now, showing a clear racial preference by the law enforcement officers not wanting to issue permits to minorities in their area. "May Issue" is a crappy, flawed system that allows local petty dictators to decide who is worthy and who is the right race or color to carry.
"Shall Issue" states (35 or so of them), like Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas etc. and now Iowa (just changed to shall issue), are required to issue a permit to anyone that meets the criteria (e.g. age, no felonies etc.), passes the background check, takes the required training, etc. The local sheriff has no choice in the matter.
*"Shall Issue" states (35 or so of them), like Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas etc. and now Iowa (just changed to shall issue), are required to issue a permit to anyone that meets the criteria (e.g. age, no felonies etc.), passes the background check, takes the required training, etc. The local sheriff has no choice in the matter.*
Good times.
The fact is the statistics DO support DonP's comments and DO NOT support Daley's accusations about concealed carry. You just don't hear about disputes over parking spaces, etc...very often when compared to all the murders currently carried out by illegally obtained firearms. I believe most places where CC has been passed have seen reductions in gun crime, but I don't recall the citation to prove that, but certainly not increases. I am VERY uncomfortable with CC in theory, I don't like guns and there are just too damn many of them in the United States as evidenced by our sky high gun violence rates. Plus the American fascination with firearms is morbid. I wish they would all disappear...
However, that's fantasy land. While I don't personally like the idea of more guns in Chicago, I like the current absurdity of a system even less. As it stands handguns are illegal yet we have such a high murder rate. The ban has been in place for many, many years, it's had time to "work" and it hasn't. Why? Same reason why the city is flooded with all the illicit drugs and prostitutes that anyone could want. Both are 100% illegal yet they exist and always will.
I don't know if CC is the answer for Chicago, but it MUST be something other than the current plan which is not working, probably not Constitutional, and on its way out anyway.
"As it stands handguns are illegal yet we have such a high murder rate."
Do we really? It appears that we are around 15th per capita. Don P's example of Saint Louis is a rather poor one given that their murder rate is 2nd highest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States…
"As it stands handguns are illegal yet we have such a high murder rate"
Not to belabor the obvious, but doesn't logic dictate that the solution to crime and a defacto "war in the streets" is not to disarm the law abiding, while the criminals are all still armed?
Yes, crime has dropped all over the country and, according to the FBI and their Uniform Crime Report, violent crime is now at a 25 year low. (Note that the drop follows over two years of the highest gun sales in history, ergo more guns does not always mean more crime or more violence - sorry gun control freaks)
It has dropped faster in cities and states with concealed carry, but correlation is not necessarily causation. It's just a damn funny "coincidence" that after two years of reporting, with bated breath, the record sales of guns and implying a forthcoming bloodbath, it's generally being ignored by most media folks now.
Gee, law abiding people that buy guns ... generally abide by the law. Who'd a thunk it? Certainly no one in City Hall.
*Not to belabor the obvious, but doesn't logic dictate that the solution to crime and a defacto "war in the streets" is not to disarm the law abiding, while the criminals are all still armed?*
Well, people with hand guns aren't exactly "law abiding" if hand guns are illegal, now are they? And not all criminals are armed, so it doesn't seem like you're the one being logical around here.
"Do we really? It appears that we are around 15th per capita. Don P's example of Saint Louis is a rather poor one given that their murder rate is 2nd highest."
My reference was about states with concealed carry permits and the permit holders. Don't confuse criminal activity with the behavior of law abiding citizens with permits. Permit holders are way below the average for crime overall and crime involving guns for states that allow CCW. I think the Florida number was from 6 to 10 times less likely than an average citizen to be involved in crime.
Prior to Missouri passing "shall issue" concealed carry, the Brady gun control group did interview after interview, predicting that the state would have a bloodbath as soon as the law was passed. The Carnahan families political capital took a major beating when they opposed it. Just like "Ma" Ann Richards in Texas years ago when she vetoed the measure twice, losing her next election to that Bush guy, who agreed to sign CCW if elected.
48 states have passed CCW, and not one has tried to repeal it.
"My reference was about states with concealed carry permits and the permit holders. Don't confuse criminal activity with the behavior of law abiding citizens with permits."
I wasn't talking to you, gun nut.
*The Carnahan families political capital took a major beating when they opposed it. Just like "Ma" Ann Richards in Texas years ago when she vetoed the measure twice, losing her next election to that Bush guy, who agreed to sign CCW if elected. *
Argumentum ad populum.
"Well, people with hand guns aren't exactly "law abiding"
Neither was Martin Luther King Junior when he "forced"his way into lunch counters in the South.
But I guess there's a fine line between civil disobedience, regarding an unjust and unconstitutional law, and being a victim for the local thugs.
Everybody gets to pick which side on that line they feel more comfortable on I guess and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Irony?
"Argumentum ad populum."
Argumentum Ad Hominem?
Feel free to continue to cut and past to your heart's content, but once in a while try and add a little something of value to the conversation, when and if capable.
Did someone just compare the act of owning an illegal handgun to Dr. Martin Luther King's defiance of jim crow? Hit the showers, everybody. The game's been called on account of asinine self-righteous grandstanding.
*Neither was Martin Luther King Junior when he "forced"his way into lunch counters in the South.*
Was he packing, Dr. Paul?
"But I guess there's a fine line between civil disobedience, regarding an unjust and unconstitutional law, and being a victim for the local thugs."
Like I've said many times before, there's not much stopping you from owning a long gun or doing any number of other things to protect yourself.
"Everybody gets to pick which side on that line they feel more comfortable on I guess and be prepared to deal with the consequences."
False dilemma.
*Feel free to continue to cut and past to your heart's content, but once in a while try and add a little something of value to the conversation, when and if capable.*
I pointed out that Chicago wasn't as violent as people like to think, in spite of the gun restrictions.
"Did someone just compare the act of owning an illegal handgun to Dr. Martin Luther King's defiance of jim crow?"
Everybody loves MLK now that's he's dead.
Unfortunately, folks like FGFM are the norm. This is what they do: They read an article about something written by a person who is actually educated on the subject and has researched it (aka Mr Dumke), then they wait to hear others' arguments for or against the issue then they pick them apart (most do a better job than this oaf, but nevertheless...). Which is fine, that's the beginnings of debate and how things change for, usually, the better. However, then they stop. They criticize and lambaste but offer nothing in the way of alternatives to what's being proposed/discussed/argued about.
FGFM and others either opposed to CCW or content with Chicago's gun policy...what is your idea as to how to combat the violence that plagues our city? If not removal of the handgun ban, then what? Is it okay that the only individuals that are "allowed" to have guns are the big wigs, the cops and the criminals? How do you reconcile fear of too many guns (what I fear) with the statistics that do NOT indicate that more guns in private ownership equals more gun crime?
As I said, I don't like guns but I can't see another way to do this. When you think that 48 of 50 states, many VERY different politically, socially, racially, economically from one another have ALL passed some sort of liberal gun ownership laws...what does that mean to you? Why are we, or why should we in Illinois/Chicago...be different?
Seriously, I'm asking. Convince me!
"Unfortunately, folks like FGFM are the norm."
I wish.
"They read an article about something written by a person who is actually educated on the subject and has researched it (aka Mr Dumke)"
I thought that Dumke wasn't necessarily against gun control but was acting as a devil's advocate.
"FGFM and others either opposed to CCW or content with Chicago's gun policy...what is your idea as to how to combat the violence that plagues our city? If not removal of the handgun ban, then what? Is it okay that the only individuals that are "allowed" to have guns are the big wigs, the cops and the criminals? How do you reconcile fear of too many guns (what I fear) with the statistics that do NOT indicate that more guns in private ownership equals more gun crime?"
Again with the cavalcade of questions routine. I really don't have a "silver bullet" for the supposed plague of violence, etc., but I think that decriminalization of drugs would be a good start.
"As I said, I don't like guns but I can't see another way to do this. When you think that 48 of 50 states, many VERY different politically, socially, racially, economically from one another have ALL passed some sort of liberal gun ownership laws...what does that mean to you? Why are we, or why should we in Illinois/Chicago...be different? "
How come you keep spouting these NRA talking points given that there's no great barrier to buying a shotgun or rifle?
"Seriously, I'm asking. Convince me!"
Why bother? You're just an Internet punching bag to me and not all that smart.
Haha..."an Internet punching bag". You really are a silly little monkey, FGFM. Perhaps you are smarter than I, but you sure have not demonstrated it on this blog or the WM discussion. But, hope springs eternal and to your credit you actually managed to write a mostly grown up post.
However, and to my great horror, it appears we both would like to see the decriminalization of drugs and both of us know that this action, more than any other that I can imagine, would reduce violent crime substantially. Why? Because it's not the drugs that cause crime...it's the prohibition of them coupled with unending demand.
Spouting NRA talking points...I don't know about that. What I said were just facts...black or white, they don't belong to any group, they just are. 48 of 50 states allow handgun ownership and since they have permitted it there, in general, has not been a concurrent rise in gun crime. As DonP smartly points out, correlation does not automatically equal causation, but they do tend to go together more often than not.
Handguns are different than long guns. They are more easily concealed and used, which is why you do not often read about crimes committed with a double barrel shotgun or rifle...just like you don't hear about people defending themselves with long guns - it is usually a smaller firearm. Long guns are used for hunting for the most part, not self defense. That's the difference IMO.
*Perhaps you are smarter than I, but you sure have not demonstrated it on this blog or the WM discussion.*
What's the second derivative of a parabola?
*What I said were just facts...black or white, they don't belong to any group, they just are. 48 of 50 states allow handgun ownership and since they have permitted it there, in general, has not been a concurrent rise in gun crime.*
Like I said, you are spouting talking points because handguns are not illegal in Illinois or Wisconsin.
"Long guns are used for hunting for the most part, not self defense."
Plenty of people keep shotguns for protection.
Hello to all, I am Australian and I wish to add my 5 cents worth,
In Australia, we have gun laws that prohibit a person with either a violent past or even a criminal record from holding a gun permit, even if you phone the police to report a violent action against an individual ( whether true or not ) that phone call will put the suspect on a list that flags them for at least 10 years from holding a permit, an individual in australia must show due cause for holding a firearm permit, either an owner of a rural property ( for shooting vermin ) or security personell ( employment with security liscence ), it is very rare for a normal citizen to gain a permit unless in special circumstance.
The problem with putting conditions on ownership (which I happen to support nevertheless) is that eventually, since this country is flooded with guns legal and illegal, if someone wants one they'll get it and usually pretty easily. When you make the conditions very strict - such as a handgun ban like in Chicago - you then virtually ensure that only criminals will have them since otherwise law-abiding folks probably won't seek out an illegal gun. (Though many do to protect themselves and in the process become technically criminals.)
I think it's more effective to enforce strict laws about committing a crime with a gun. Throw the non-violent drug offenders out of prison (currently at least 25% of the US prison population falls into this category) to make room and then put them in there for a good long time. Make it a lousy place to be, remove tv, free time, make them break rocks, I don't care. If you commit a violent crime and/or use a gun to do it, get your ass to jail.
If you look at the facts most gun crimes are NOT committed by people that have a legally registered firearm...they are usually committed by people who are already criminals and in most cases I believe the gun was unregistered.
It's a tough issue to solve either way.
"Make it a lousy place to be, remove tv, free time, make them break rocks, I don't care. If you commit a violent crime and/or use a gun to do it, get your ass to jail."
Are there no workhouses?
"Make it a lousy place to be, remove tv, free time, make them break rocks, I don't care. If you commit a violent crime and/or use a gun to do it, get your ass to jail."
As someone who spent several years maintaining safe, secure environments for those judged to be in need of such treatment, TV, inmate canteens for stocking up on junk food, and rec yards were OUR friends. Turning big rocks into little rocks as a major part of the day makes for inmates in really good physical shape. Not good for staff to have to deal with.
Think about it. Inmates have 168 hours a week to think up ways to hurt staff, they have eyes on them 24/7 inside and outside the fences, and a lot more resources than most people think. Not all inmates are bad guys. Probably 85-90% are real willing to just do their time and get back home with their families. Most were just dumb enough to get caught doing something dumb. Believe it or not, there are innocent people locked up. Not many true innocents, but there are a few. More often they're innocent of the charges of which they were convicted, but willing to do that time rather than whatever time they'd get for stuff of which they were not convicted.
Having said that, there are some really BAD guys in prison. I want those guys as flabby and stupid as they can be, and since they're the guys who are willing to do whatever to whomever, I want to be able to legally defend myself, my family, and whoever happens to be around in need of protection. Bad guys need nasty surprises now and then, and old men like me are sometimes going to deliver those surprises. I carried a gun every day for years and I never shot anybody. I hope to never have to shoot anybody, but if it becomes necessary, it becomes necessary.
Since moving to Illinois, I've been largely a law-abiding citizen, but I would like to be able to legally choose to carry or not to carry. I take my chances of arrest when I go to Chicago, but I keep my weapons well concealed. I don't want to tip off the bad guys OR the cops. I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
I know a lot of cops in the Chicago area, most of whom wouldn't make a big deal out of finding an otherwise law-abiding citizen carrying a gun. A rookie having a bad day might, but any cop with a few years on the job would realize I have as much right to protect myself as anyone else.
@Cowboy Dan - While I appreciate your service in the corrections system, and agree with you on the right to protect your family, the prison system is not about making sure corrections officers have an easier job...it's about 1) removing the bad, violent and dangerous people from society, 2) making sure once they do their time they do NOT want to return, and 3) reforming them if possible.
If taking away amenities that make life in prison more enjoyable and refusing to consider hard labor makes C.O.'s uncomfortable in their jobs then we need to address that, not drop a potential tool in preventing people from committing crimes. It's not about the staff of the prison, it's about the people behind bars and how best to deal with them for society's sake.
Here's an important statistic.
Of prison inmates who used a gun during the offense that brought them to prison, 40% stole the gun or bought it on the black market, and 40% got it from friends or family. Source: US DOJ
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fuo.pdf
And despite the propaganda, less than 1% of criminals got their gun at a gun show.
Conclusion: gun restrictions and bans don't disarm criminals.
"I take my chances of arrest when I go to Chicago, but I keep my weapons well concealed. "
Hilarious. I love the suburban cowboys who think the entire city of Chicago is a war zone. You probably wouldn't be able to walk through my neighborhood without blowing some innocent black kid's head off.
"Hilarious. I love the suburban cowboys who think the entire city of Chicago is a war zone. You probably wouldn't be able to walk through my neighborhood without blowing some innocent black kid's head off."
That's why we read about those shootings on innocents all the time in Chicago and every other major city in the 48 states that allow concealed carry ... oh wait, we never do.
Are you as dumb as Daley and Weis and assume that no one ever reads news from other cities?
Those shootings you describe don't happen, the violent crime rate, after two years of record gun sales, is at a 25 year low. The "suburban cowboys" (are Edison Park and Beverly suburban now?) are not the problem.
That "innocent black kid" in your neighborhood you're so worried about is probably going to be shot be another black kid that rented a 9 mm from someone that didn't check his age, FOID card and I'm guessing he's also not a member of the NRA. Maybe you should patrol the streets of Englewood tonight to save him.
The only place suburban cowboys shoot people up is in the fevered imagination of gun control "experts" that learned everything they need to know about guns from playing Medal of Honor and on TV, watching re-runs of the A-team and Bruce Willis movies in Mom's basement.
"That's why we read about those shootings on innocents all the time in Chicago and every other major city in the 48 states that allow concealed carry ... oh wait, we never do."
Ever try to get a permit in New York City?
Concealed carry means that your most basic human right - the right to your life - is not dependent on anyone else, an certainly not on police response priorities and times. Parts of the country with concealed carry have lower crime rates, and particular lower crimes of violence against women.
Owning a gun is not a crime, although some places falsely criminalize it. Misusing a gun should always be a crime.
Geez, all this concern over concealed carry, see Florida & Texas government databases on the # of revoked licenses and the number of the revoked licenses that involved a violent crime involving a firearm. Real small.
Then we have the Violence Policy Center, not an NRA web site or data point whose worst and unsubstantiated count for deaths caused feloniously by concealed license holders at 137 over a three year time period.
Then we have JAMA Journal of American Medical Association again, not an NRA website or talking point identifying that the 700,000 doctors in the US kill 44,000 to 98,000 people a year due to medical malpractice.
So no NRA web sites or data they provided, yet a doctor is 14,000 to 31,818 times more likely to kill you than any of the 8 million people (ATF data) licensed to carry concealed, again based on NRA provided information.
Big scary numbers over three years, 700k doctors kill 132,000 to 294,000, 8 mill concealed pistol locense holders killed 137.
Bet FGFM also agrees that government mandated health care is an inherent right. Pretty safe assumption as the government is forcing everyone into such a dangerous public safety risk as a doctor, yet claims the second amendment is such an inherent public safety risk. Such hypocrisy, all provided by NO NRA stated or developed data points. Amazing how easy that was with so many choices of government data points to choose from.
Then we have all the examples of excellent enforecement of the 20,000 existing gun control laws in the US. Let's review the poster child of all gu control laws, the Brady Background Check. The USDOJ United States Department of Justice, not an NRA organization provides an annual Background Check & Firearm Transfer report. That report in 2008 identified that since 1994, of the 1.67 million valid rejections for purchase from a licensed source, less than 1% of those have been prosecuted. Wow, such a glowing example, less than 1%, yet you people want everyone to believe more laws will stop violent crime, ROTFLMFAO.
Yeah, then lets go back to 1968, Haynes vs US Supreme Court (lets see FGFM spin that the US Supreme Court Justices are all NRA lackeys then, oh wait, the NRA lobbying function didnt exist until the 1970's) ruling 8-1 in favor Haynes. That little ruling states simply, no felon is legally held to follow a law for identification or traceability that would in any form violate their fifth amendment right to no self incrimination. Well that promptly eliminates around 85% of all gun control laws don't apply to felons. So reality is most gun control laws don't do didley to criminals.
Amazing how the same USDOJ Correctional survey in 197 identified felons det their firearms 80% street/private/theft, 12% retail, 2% gun shows or 14% from licensed sources. Since the Background report also notes that of those rejected 58%, since 1994 that percentage of attempted buys by felons has dropped 68%. That means that today felons get their fireams 90% street/private/theft, 5.4% retail, .56% gun shows. My how that law affects mostly LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, such hypocrits.
As for illegal guns, when the complete ban on design, development, manufacture, and distribution world wide where not even the government has possession of them, only then will a firearm be illegal. It is the possession by a "person" the large majority of whom were convicted or diagnosed in the 9 categories of "bad people" by the proper consistent authorities as defined by the 1968 gun control act that is what is illegal.
Of course you could actually first go read the actual ATF rules and regulations about purchasing and owning say, a Sherman tank, Quad .50 anti aircraft gun, all those lovely full auto squad and transport carried machine guns and all the real assault weapons we get to shoot at the auto gun shoots throught the US. They are called class 3 weapons and low and behold, there multiple advertisements throughout gun literature and magazines.
No based on reality, it is whether on not you can 1) afford the price to purchase 2) afford the price to shoot 3) afford the price to contribute to your local sherriff's political campaign as they have to sign off on you possessing a real machine gun 4) can deal with the ATF having carte blanche rights to enter your house at any time they choose to make sure you have the weapon and aren't intent on formenting armed insurrection against the Nazi's and Communists in charge. Those are the main points why so many DON'T have a class3 weapon, but are they illegal, uh no.
Get back to us when you anti's have something more than empathic talking points straight from the VPC, Brady Bunch and Stalin protege Daley's politburo.
With the release of the Illinois UCR, a clearer picture of crime in the state can now be seen even though the state still remains in non-compliance w/ the FBI .
Nationally, the murder numbers/rate dropped from 16928/5.6 to 16272/5.4 from '07 to '08.
Illinois had a population of 12.85 million w/ a increased murder rate of 6.1/100K (790) in comparison to 5.9/100K last year.
Chicago had 22% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 64.5% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 18/100K. an increase in murders both raw and per capita.
Cook County had 41% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 73.9% of murders(584) w/ a per capita rate of 11.1/100K. It had a population drop yet an increase in murders due exclusively to Chicago.
The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita increased 11.9 and 11/1% respectively while arrest numbers and rates decreased compared to '07.
If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 2.8 .
Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 2.72 .
Yet instead we saw that increase. Now it's appearing that, in order to artificially reduce the murder rate from the disaster they saw in '08, they're increasingly classifying deaths as 'suicides'. All to continue to justify their ineffective gun ban.
Then there's the % of murders by types of weapons used, 2008:
Nationally: 66.9
Chicago: 80.8
