Gunning for Chicago

As the City of Chicago digests the news of today’s Olympics decision, we must not overlook the news that came out of Washington earlier this week that will directly impact our neighborhoods, with or without the Games.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review McDonald vs. City of Chicago, a case that challenges whether or not Chicago’s local handgun ban is legal.  It is a development that deeply concerns me.

Since 1983, it has been illegal to purchase or own a handgun within Chicago’s city limits.  Over the course of the 26 years since, Chicago has seen the number of registered handguns drop from more than 400,000 to fewer than 200,000. Guns have become scarcer, saving lives and creating safer neighborhoods in the process. 

But the threat of gun violence has by no means dissipated. Chicago communities are still reeling from losses of neighbors, children and friends -- innocent bystanders caught by a stray bullet, someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. The last thing our city needs is more guns on the street and more children fearing for their safety.

In a Chicago Sun-Times survey from last year, Chicago elementary school students were asked their greatest fear.

The overwhelming answer: getting shot.

More than 500 students in Chicago were involved in a gun-related incident over the last two years, and four-fifths of Chicago homicide victims died from gunshot wounds It's not hard to understand why they're so scared.

According to the survey, half of fifth- through eighth-graders in Chicago know a friend or relative who has been shot at and more than a third know a friend or relative who has been shot to death. 

A fourth-grader at Sexton Elementary School put into words what no statistics can:

“I would feel good if I lived in a different city,” she said.  “I would not have to be scared to go outside.”

If the Supreme Court abides by its previous rulings on Second Amendment cases, it will honor the decision made in the McDonald case and allow the ruling to stand. There is a clear constitutional case to be made for upholding local and state laws on this matter.

In the 1939 case United States vs. Miller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that states had a right to maintain militias free of interference from the Federal Government. While the Court’s recent 5-4 decision in the Court of the District of Columbia vs. Heller was hailed by the gun lobby as proof that this view had changed, the ruling actually affirmed that legal restrictions could be placed on individual gun ownership.

Furthermore, the court’s decision striking down the more restrictive portions of Washington, D.C.’s gun laws did not address the rights of states to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, as it only referred to acts of Congress. It would be tragically ironic if this amendment, enshrined in the Constitution in part to protect states from encroachment by the federal government, were used to take away the rights of Illinois citizens to decide whether guns belong in the hands of school children.

During my time in Washington, I have become increasingly frustrated by the power held by the gun lobby.

Legislation to finally give voting rights to the taxpaying citizens of the District of Columbia was derailed by an amendment that would have allowed unrestricted gun possession anywhere in the city, including elementary schools.

Critical reform on the credit card industry became law only with a compromise to allow concealed weapons in National Parks.

Congress refused to extend the Assault Weapons Ban, and when the ban expired in 2004, the number of deaths among children and teens from firearms increased for the first time since it was enacted in 1994. During a Judiciary Committee hearing I recently asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the Obama Administration would push for a renewal of this life-saving legislation. I stand ready to work with the administration to make this happen. But, in the absence of federal action, it is critical that we preserve the rights of the people of states and municipalities to protect their children at the local level.

How many more parents will lose a child, or children will lose a parent if we allow more weapons into our neighborhoods?

More than 500 students in Chicago were involved in a gun-related incident over the last two years. Will reversing this decision cause that number to reach 600? 700?

How much longer can we afford the estimated $2.5 billion a year we spend due to gun violence?

How many more families and dreams will be shattered at the barrel of a gun?

Can we continue to pay such hefty costs?

Our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights to ensure that We the People could determine how best to protect our communities. The people of Chicago have made it very clear that they favor sensible restrictions on gun ownership. It is up to the Supreme Court to abide by over 200 years of judicial precedent and allow the McDonald decision, and the laws of the City of Chicago, to stand.

 

 

Follow Mike Quigley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/repmikequigley

Comments

[Thirdpower]

"Guns have become scarcer, saving lives and creating safer neighborhoods in the process. "

As the evidence shows, this is not true.

Were I making the claim that "More guns=less crime", Jade's red herring might have a point. Since I don't make that claim, yet advocates of the Chicago handgun ban make the claim that the ban directly caused any possible reductions in crime (which there isn't even any correlation to that), my numbers stand.

[djcrsn]

our numbers always do

[prayforroy]

Let us pray.

Let's use TP's faulty methodology on a different state: Louisiana. LA has very lax gun laws throughout the state and they don't vary much.

In 2006, there were 530 homicides in the state of LA; at that time the population of LA was almost 4.3M--meaning the per capita homicide rate was about 12.3.

In 2006, New Orleans there were 160 homicides out of a population of almost 213K for a per capita homicide rate of 75.2.

If we employ TP's magic disappearance and leap o' logic method--we see that if NOLA were to go away, the state's per capita homicide rate would decrease by about a percentage point to a little more than 11.3.

This points up the complete innumercay of TP's analysis. One, the gun laws throughout LA are just about uniform. Two, NOLA, while being LA's largest city, is not disproportionately weighted. Cities like Baton Rouge and Shreveport are very close to NOLA in terms of population.

[Thirdpower]

A perfect example of Jade's 'methodology' as shown in the posts cited below.

JadeGold:"BTW, the population of Chicago is greater now than in '82."

Thirdpower: No, actually it isn't. In 1980, the population was a little over 3 million. The population as of 2008 is under 2.9 millions. A loss of over 100K people is not 'greater' except in the world of Jadegold who has claimed the city has 9.7 million people in it.
Reply Posted 04:05 AM on 10/11/2009

- + prayforroy
1980 census: Chicago population: 2,783,726

Today's Chicago pop: 2,842,518

Hmmm, let us pray.
Reply Posted 09:58 AM on 10/11/2009

- + Thirdpower I'm a Fan of Thirdpower I'm a fan of this user 37 fans permalink
photo

That's the 1990 census numbers Jade.

1990 /= 1980 except in your world.

And when presented w/ links to the US Census, he claimed they were wrong.

[Thirdpower]

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

[prayforroy]

Let us pray. For the eleventh month.

TP has posted this comment--or a variation of this comment at least half a dozen times in this forum.

I wonder why since it's erroneous, misleading and depends on its audience not to have any knowledge of statistics.

First off, Chicago is easily the most populous city in IL. In point of fact, the next closest city in IL in terms of population is Aurora with a population of about 175K. To put it in perspective, Chicago is nearly 18X the size of Aurora.

Second, TP's analysis suffers from what is known as systemic bias. This means he compares Chicago and the rest of the state of IL as two distinct entities. He assumes all of non-Chicago IL is identical. This lack of identicality is easily exposed whe we compare homicide rates between various IL counties. We can easily see some counties have very, very low homicide rates and some have homicide rates that exceed Chicago's. Yet, TP attempts to treat all of non-Chicago IL as a homogenous entity. As a result, TPO induces biased selection into his analysis.

[Thirdpower]

Yet the claim is still made by the author that Chicago's handgun ban is what caused any reductions in crime it may have seen in the past. Since that is patently not true except by the fabricated claims and numbers provided regularly by JadeGold, the analysis is accurate.

[shedances]

Well said, Congressman; and your comments keep this discussion grounded in reality. Thank YOU. There certainly seem to be adults around, who have never even lived in the 'urban jungle' or in a large metropolitan city like Chicago, who sound apathetic about the impact of guns & violence, esp.on our youth. This is shocking to read & accept; but I feel it can be changed. In some ways ~ at least in the city of Chicago ~ it has because of the city's strong stance, commitment to regulations & Mayor Daley's accomplishments in that realm. Yet, the gun lobby both nationally & here in my state of Illinois seem to have little-to-­absolutely zero commitment when it comes to others & their safety in their communities (I would argue). While shouting that their rights as firearm weapons enthusiasts are being somehow repressed by such things as specific laws, they turn around & seek to entirely disregard & oppress all others ~ by denying us our right to live and raise our youth in places with lesser numbers of guns & gun related problems.

[djcrsn]

Kelli--you just don't grasp the concept that because I have the right to own firearms, you DO NOT have the right to tell me what guns I am entitled to own. What you do or do not approve of is completely irrelevent and immaterial once you leave property you own or control

[djcrsn]

Also Kelli--I have lived and worked in Los Angeles county since 1971--and that contributes greatly to my opposition to your plantation owner antirights position

[benEzra]

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 530 murders were reported in the entire state of Illinois in 2008. All rifles COMBINED, including so-called "assault weapons," accounted for 3 (yes, three) of those.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Banning the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in the United States (many of which are made in Illinois), when rifles of any type are involved in only 2.6% of U.S. murders and 0.6% of Illinois murders annually, makes no objective sense.

FWIW, the 1994 Feinstein law did not, in fact, ban civilian AK lookalikes or AR-15 type rifles; on the contrary, it sharply increased their popularity, such that more were made/imported and sold between 1994 and 2004 than in the previous three decades combined. My own non-automatic civilian AK is a 2002 model.

[Thirdpower]

Apparently all those guns we're shipping to Mexico is having an effect on US criminals as the numbers and rates of violent crimes/murders/ and most other crime designations have dropped again for the second year. That gives us lower rates than we've seen in over 30 years.

Since Illinois remains in non-compliance w/ the FBI on crime reporting, the only comparable stat. is murder.

Nationally, the murder numbers/rate dropped from 16928/5.6 to 16272/5.4 from '07 to '08.

Illinois INCREASED from 752/5.9 to 790/6.1 . All due to the Brady Paradise of Chicago.

Chicago increased from 445/15.7 to 510 murders w/ a rate of 18/100k.

Dumping Chicago, Illinois would have seen a drop from 307/3.04 to 280 murders w/ a rate of 2.77.

Thanks Chicago. We're so glad to have you with us.

[prayforroy]

Let us pray.

TP's "analysis" makes no sense.

If Illinois had a gun-lover's paradise such as New Orleans or Miami or Memphis as its major city, its murder rate would be much higher still. Thus, TP's "reasoning" crumbles away.

Additionally, TP ignores the fact that there are counties within Illinois that have murder rates equal to or higher than Chicago's. Why isn't TP blaming them? Oh, yeah...they don't have stricter gun laws.

[Thirdpower]

Note the numerous red herrings Jade throws in there since all the laws he desires are in place in Chicago and they have failed.

He's fabricated crime numbers before as well as population numbers. Let's watch him do it again.

Chicago w/ its near complete ban on guns (unless you're an Alderman) has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state.

[djcrsn]

I hope prayforguy finally deals with his hoplophobia and learns to deal truthfully with the world

[Mike Quigley - Huffpost Blogger]

While any debate that centers on personal freedoms and gun control has the potential to become contentious, there is one thing we can all agree on: Chicago needs to be safer.

500 gun-related incidents involving students is 500 too many. We simply must do better.
In my original post, I was clear that the handgun ban is not a solution by itself, but merely one aspect of a comprehensive effort that must include law enforcement and the community.

However, I will never concede that the answer to gun violence is more guns. That is exactly what will happen should the Supreme Court overturn the McDonald decision. For those that argue most of Chicago’s gun-violence comes from unregistered weapons obtained illegally, more guns—registered or unregistered—means a greater opportunity for deadly weapons to fall into the wrong hands.

I want to thank everyone from Chicago and beyond for contributing to this ongoing dialogue. Politics has always been a two-way conversati­on—between elected officials and those that elect them. I look forward to continuing that conversation.

[djcrsn]

In terms of reducing crime--the bans in DC and Chicago have been a complete failure--violent crime involving guns is higher now than it was when the bans passed (simply because the bans shift the balance of power to those that will ignore the law and own/carry guns REGARDLESS of the law)

[prayforroy]

Patently false.

When the law was passed in Chicago in 1982, there were over 800 homicides that year in Chicago. There are now fewer than 400. BTW, the population of Chicago is greater now than in '82.

[Ohio9]

Wake up Mr. Quigly! The horrific numbers and incidents of gun violence you cite is proof that Chicago's handgun ban is a failure! The notion that the ban is simply "insufficient" is laughable. What they show is the ban is useless. How much more evidence do you need?

Also it is simply niave to assume crime will increase if (hopefully when) the ban, crime will increase. Washington's political anti-gun hacks made the same chicken little claims after the Heller verdict, yet one year later they have failed to cite any significant increase in crime.

[Mark0]

"there is one thing we can all agree on: Chicago needs to be safer."

Mr. Quigley,

I am a long-time law-abiding citizen. How exactly does disarming me make Chicago safer?

[djcrsn]

The gun ban has rather obviously done nothing to protect Chicago--precisely because the only people disarmed are NOT THE CRIMINALS

[crookedcountyillinois]

I see alot of great pro and con arguments here. But I do not think we should be arguing the merits of the United States Constitution. If we can argue that one amendment, that protects the rights of everyone, doesn't apply; then we essentially negate all of our rights.

[djcrsn]

too true--too bad the gunbanners don't seem to understand that

[mat3]

If we made it illegal to carry cash, we could reduce the supply of money to muggers. If we outlawed cars, we could reduce the supply of cars to car thieves. If we made it illegal to walk after dark, we could reduce the number of people assaulted. Instead of denying things to those who follow the law, how about we try taking the criminals off the street? It's ridiculous how many offenses some of these criminals commit before they finally due something "serious" and everybody acts like they couldn't see it coming.

[JohnRafail]

"Since 1983, it has been illegal to purchase or own a handgun within Chicago’s city limits. Over the course of the 26 years since, Chicago has seen the number of registered handguns drop from more than 400,000 to fewer than 200,000. Guns have become scarcer, saving lives and creating safer neighborhoods in the process."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-quigley/gunning-for-chicago_b_307672.html


This is a joke, right?

[poomplet]

Yeah...he neglects to mention the inconvenient lil' fact that since the ban has gone into effect, murders have gone UP in Chicago (particulary with victims 18 and under).

[benEzra]

According to the FBI, there were 530 murders in the entire state of Illinois in 2008, including Chicago. All rifles combined, including so-called 'assault weapons," accounted for only three of them. (Yes, you read that right.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Nationwide, rifle crime has in fact continued to decline since 2004. Rifles accounted for 2.6% of U.S. murders last year, down from 3.0% in 2007.

Rifles, regardless of whether the handgrip and magazine stick out, are not a significant crime problem in the United States and never have been. One could be excused for believing the MSM hyperbole on the topic, though.

[prayforroy]

Because science has a bias:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/index.html

PHILADELPHIA – In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

[OdinsEye]

Hardly the first of its kind. Previous studies have shown that a person using a firearm was less likely to be injured or have the crime completed against them than by resisting by any other means.

[OdinsEye]

BTW, still waiting for you to finish answering several other issues here, such as trotting out Chicago's data from 82 to 89 or to show how the NRA made it so anyone convicted of a misdemeanor could buy firearms.

[Thirdpower]

I'm still waiting for Jade to justify the 100+ Chicago homicides he 'forgot' to add to his made up numbers.

[Thirdpower]

So how many of those individuals were legally carrying? Oh, right, the study doesn't say.

This 'first of its kind study' brought to you by the Joyce Foundation.

[djcrsn]

which tells me the study is like every other Joyce foundation study out there--good only to light your BBQ

[prayforroy]

Let us pray.

I see TP is claiming this is funded by the Joyce Foundation, though the press release makes no mention of them. It does say the study was funded by NIH, though.

But let's suppose the Joyce Foundation did fund it. Isn't it amazing how many scientists, doctors and universities are willing to sell their reputations to the Joyce Foundation?

[OdinsEye]

Study Limitations
A number of study limitations deserve discussion. Our control population was more unemployed
than the target population of Philadelphians that it was to intended to represent.... It is also
worth noting that our findings are possibly not generalizable to nonurban areas whose gun injury risks can be significantly different than those of urban centers like Philadelphia.... Certain other variables that may have confounded the association between gun possession and assault were also beyond the scope of our data collection system and, therefore, were not included in our analyses.... We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault.... Finally, our results could have been affected by misclassification of gun possession status.

And the study references several other studies which have been refuted - building a wall using crumbling bricks.

[prayforroy]

I see OE is unacquainted with academic studies.

I shall attempt to illuminate him. Any study which relies on statistical inference--such as the one we're discussing--should (indeed, must) include those factors the reearchers could not necessarily account for or control. Does this mean the study is bogus or meaningless when a study lists them?

No.

What it does mean is the conclusion will not change but the magnitude may slightly. That's why wheneveer you see a poll--there's always a MoE listed. Pollsters know some people may lie or may misunderstand the questions.

Similarly, the researchers in this study acknowlede several factors they can't adequately control or account for. Does it mean their conclusion goes away? No. They are getting results in the 4.5x range with a 95% (or greater) level of confidence.

[prayforroy]

It should also be noted OE edited and truncated the study's limitations in order to cast the study in a bad light.

For example, the study limitation notes their sample may have been less employed than the target Philadelphia population---then OE omits this part:

"Although we did account for employment
status in our regression models and our
control population was found to be representative
of Philadelphians for 5 other indicators,
having a preponderance of unemployment
among our control participants may mildly
erode our study’s generalizability."

OE also omits this part:

"The ensuing sensitivity
analyses demonstrated odds ratio estimates
that increased and decreased in statistical significance
but that did not drop below 1.00, even
when challenged with high levels of misclassification.
Thus, even after simulating high levels of
misclassification bias, a net protective effect of
gun possession was not evident."

[ejhickey]

I am a little confused by Mr. Quigley's article . Has the threat of gun violence increased or decreased? Is the problem the number of legally owned guns in Chicago or the number of guns illegally possessed by Chicago residents, especially teenagers?

[djcrsn]

2 points pop out--violence is higher now than when the gun ban passed almost 30 years ago, and the violence is overwhelmingly committed by people (especially teenagers) using illegal guns PRIMARILY BECAUSE the law abiding victims are selectively disarmed

[prayforroy]

Sadly, the facts do not support your assertions.

[prayforroy]

"That just the thing Mike. Eliminating the handgun ban won't do any more to put guns on the street, than the ban did to take guns off the street (which is to say not at all)."

False.

Where do criminals get their guns? They're not making them at home. They don't magically appear. They get their guns via many of the same channels as so-called law-abiding citizens. Thus, if you open those channels--you are bound to see more guns wind up in the hands of criminals. Thanks to the NRA, anyone with a criminal record (assuming no felonies) can legally purchase guns and then turn around and sell those weapons to any criminal--felonious or otherwise.

FFLs have been known to turn a blind eye to selling to criminals.

Criminals also get guns by stealing them. More guns means more opportunities for theft.

[OdinsEye]

Since there is no way of telling how many illegal firearms are in Chicago, there is no way of telling if the ban has reduced the number of illegal firearms in Chicago. The only which can be determined is the number of legal firearms in Chicago.

"Where do criminals get their guns? They're not making them at home. "

Actually in the early 1990s a study of firearms recovered in DC showed up to 20% were "home made".

"They get their guns via many of the same channels as so-called law-abiding citizens."

Law abiding citizens don't steal firearms.

"Thanks to the NRA, anyone with a criminal record (assuming no felonies) can legally purchase guns"

Where you came up with that gem it truly baffling.

"FFLs have been known to turn a blind eye to selling to criminals."

Very, very few FFLs.

[prayforroy]

Let us dismantle OE's creative meanderings, one by one:

"Actually in the early 1990s a study of firearms recovered in DC showed up to 20% were "home made". "

Not exactly. This is an embellishment often-cited on pro-gun blogs. They usually don't post any attribution. I have done the heavy lifting. What's being referred to here is a 1977 BATF Analysis of Operation CUE (Concentrated Urban Enforcement, interim report (Washington D.C.: February 15, 1977), pp. 133-34. This 1977 interim report stated that as many as one-fifth of recovered crime firearms were homemade or had homemade modifications. In 1986, Richard Gardiner and Paul Blackman of the NRA misrespresented this 1977 interim report to say 20% of the guns were homemade. As a result, pro-gun hacks like David Kopel and Walter Williams have repeated the NRA's dishonest interpretation and also claimed the report was written by the BATF in 1986.


"Where you came up with that gem it truly baffling. "

One need only pay attention to recent news. The charming fellow in Minnesota who felt the need to carry firearms when the President visited the state had 9 convictions under his belt.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-quigley/gunning-for-chicago_b_307672.html

[LtBromhead]

"The last thing our city needs is more guns on the street and more children fearing for their safety.


That just the thing Mike. Eliminating the handgun ban won't do any more to put guns on the street, than the ban did to take guns off the street (which is to say not at all). It will enable people to have a gun in their home. The state of Illinois does not allow for carry of guns, openly or concealed.

The street is already full of guns, despite the ban, and I don't see that ever changing.

[mratcheson]

If the rational behind invalidating the Chicago ban on handguns is the 2nd amendment, would it not follow that the right to bear arms, which I interpret to mean carry arms, is as legitimate as the right to keep arms?

[OdinsEye]

Depends on where, how, and why.