Author: Austin Norman

Created: Sunday October 29th 2017 at 3:31am

Category: News

The Flawed Argument Of Using Chicago As An Example Of Gun Control Failure

PyFiSHcyPa.jpg

The Chicago argument against the effectiveness of gun control is deeply flawed, and based on incomplete or false information. It has no credibility and I'll explain why. Firstly, I don't buy this idea that "bad people" will continue to get guns at the rate they do now with national strict gun regulations. Anytime you make something harder to accomplish, it knocks out larger and larger percentages of people that would otherwise do whatever it is that is getting more difficult. That said, unless something is 100% impossible to do, there will always be some people that are able to do it anyway. For example, it's very hard to get guns in the UK, their homicide rate is way lower than that of United States, and their gun deaths are next to nothing; (at many times less than 100 in total a year).


Take for the sake of argument, the routine of becoming a U.S. Navy Seal. Very few people can endure the training required to become a Navy Seal.  As the training progresses gets harder it knocks out a larger and larger percentages of people that applied. Despite how hard it is, a few guys make it to becoming Navy Seals anyway. The UK is one of the hardest places to get a gun in the world, and a few people still do it. Is this any excuse to not have tougher gun laws? Nope! It's proof that long term strict gun regulations work very well as a whole. What does this have to do with this ridiculous and ubiquitous "Chicago argument" you ask? It's like the people making this argument assume people are landlocked to their city. We have little mechanical devices these days called automobiles, and you can use them to get around to other places. How easy is it still to get a gun in Chicago? You literally just have to drive to East Chicago.


Yep, East Chicago is 28 miles away from Chicago, and it's actually in the state of Indiana. Indiana has very lax gun laws when compared to the state of Illinois. Literally just over the border into East Chicago, there's a Cabela's locked, loaded, and ready to sell you handguns. Also, just like in Montana where I live, you aren't required to do a background check for private party transactions. People involved in organized crime could literally be looking at Armslist to buy a gun 30 miles away from a private party, and they wouldn't even have to worry about background checks.


Image From Google Maps From Downtown Chicago To The Nearest Cabela's Store In Hammond Just South Of East Chicago:

KECdsiHAmP.jpg


This isn't raising the bar much for making it difficult for criminals to access guns. If you were involved in gang and criminal activity you could still easily get a gun without any background check. In fact if you look at the statistics the illegal guns used in Chicago for homicides are purchased in Indiana (just 28 miles away) and other states nearby where guns are easy to get. Now you're right that they're breaking laws by taking the guns back into Chicago and Illinois because there are strict city and state laws about guns, but so what? Their access to guns is so idiotically easy when compared to say the UK that this argument is laughable. Your argument is essentially, "Gun laws don't work in Chicago, even though people can easily drive 30 miles to get a gun, therefore gun laws won't work anymore on a national level."

Chart Showing Homicide Rates By First World Countries: Most Homicides In The U.S. Are Completed With A Firearm.

snmWmTrcTT.png


The Chicago argument is a totally ridiculous argument at its face value. In fact, while the gun folks are arguing Chicago gun laws don't work, it's more logical to conclude that it is actually because of the easy access to guns 28 miles away in East Chicago that gangs are able to commit so much crime and homicide within Chicago. Essentially, it's because of the lax gun laws surrounding Chicago that the homicides among gangs in Chicago are being easily facilitated. This argument just needs to be rejected, because it's a ridiculous supposition to defend in terms of any reason not to enact more gun regulations on the Federal level.

Comments