Chicago's Handgun Ban Has Little To Do With Gun Violence
It's enticing to think that the Supreme Court agreeing late last month to settle once and for all the legality of Chicago's handgun ban will have some major effect on crime in Chicago, but in all likelihood it won't.
The court's decision to finally weigh in comes at a time when neither gun rights advocates nor gun control proponents are satisfied with the current state of things. Opponents point to the city's second-highest-in-the-nation murder rate and say the ban isn't working. Proponents of the ban say it doesn't work perfectly because it isn't big enough -- not tough enough on dealers or with too many holes in the tracking process.
You can argue the merits and legality of a handgun ban in the abstract until you are blue in the face, but what's clear from the 27 years it has been in existence is that Chicago's ban does not work the way it was intended.
It makes it harder for the public to get handguns, but not for criminals to get them. One of the most common refrains heard from gun rights advocates is that bans create a situation where criminals have handguns and law-abiding citizens do not. Surely, that's not the situation policy makers had in mind when they drafted the legislation.
Now, that's not to say there are no arguments for having one. Law enforcement agencies overwhelmingly favor bans because it allows them to arrest criminals just for having handguns on them. Legalize handguns and they can no longer arrest people just for walking down the street carrying a piece.
But there's no question criminals can get handguns if they want them.
I once set out to see just how hard it would be to buy a gun illegally in Chicago. I went to see Father Bruce Wellems, pastor of Holy Cross Church in Back of the Yards, and he told me he knew exactly where to go to find a buyer. I decided to first call the Chicago Police Department and ask if they knew about this spot (they did) and if so, why they didn't shut it down (because a new dealer would show up the next day).
They warned me not to go ahead with my journalistic exercise and try to buy a gun, in part because it was dangerous and also because if I actually managed to buy one and then wrote about it, they would have all the evidence they needed to arrest and convict me.
So I didn't buy a handgun, but I'm convinced that if I needed one tomorrow I could get it.
The fundamental problem with gun bans is that they must be comprehensive and powerful to have any chance of working. The one kind of ban that could ever work is the kind the founder's feared when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Chicago's handgun ban is easily undermined by driving outside the city limits. Some municipalities add waiting periods, but if you're willing to wait a couple of weeks you can get one easily enough.
In Illinois, most guns used in crimes are handguns. Of the guns recovered from Illinois crime scenes, far more come from inside Illinois than from any other state.
When I asked Special Agent Thomas Ahern of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms about this phenomenon, he said something illuminating: "All guns start out legal. It's somewhere down the road where they become illegal."
The justices may want to keep that in mind as they weigh Chicago's handgun ban. If illegal handguns are being bought legally, then what really is the ban accomplishing?
Regardless of whether there's a ban or not, criminals will have guns. Those who fear that repealing the ban will lead to a spike in the number of guns on the street should look to Washington, D.C.
A year after its ban was struck down only 550 residents have registered handguns with the police. And midway through 2009, the city's homicide rate was down from the year before.
The real question is what if anything can be done to stop gun violence.
And I seriously doubt the justices have an answer for that.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
even if the hand gun ban is over turned, it will still be illegal for minor children to own and carry fire arms.
Good post. Not perfect, but closer to reality than I've ever seen from a Huffpo blogger.
"It makes it harder for the public to get handguns, but not for criminals to get them. One of the most common refrains heard from gun rights advocates is that bans create a situation where criminals have handguns and law-abiding citizens do not."
Spot on. One just needs to look at homicide rates in DC and Chicago, and then one needs to be honest with one's self..
"Surely, that's not the situation policy makers had in mind when they drafted the legislation."
Policy makers had one thing on their minds when they drafted the legislation............getting reelected.
You were doing great until you said:
"Law enforcement agencies overwhelmingly favor bans because it allows them to arrest criminals just for having handguns on them."
Not true. By far, the largest organization of law enforcement officers is the Fraternal Order of Police (who the BC calls a "fringe organization"). Their membership dwarfs the COMBINED membership of all of the police organizations that anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign try to foist off as being representatives of rank and file police officers. The FOP in NO WAY favors bans.
But, you are on the right track, Tim.
"Hear, hear!
So, to lower crime rates, lets start passing out guns!
There's a reason why that argument is counter intuitive... because it's wrong. Simply waving around a gun won't stop a crime... you'll have to shoot, and shoot to kill. Because if you don't kill them, they'll kill you for shooting them." -comrade leviatan
No sir, I'm afarid that YOU are wrong. Don't feel bad. Lots of people are operating under the same misaprehension.
According to the FBI, there are 80,000 defensive uses of firearms yearly in the US. In only 6%-8% of those instances is it necessary to fire the weapon.
So, 93% of the time "waving around a gun" (who does that?) works just fine.
If you were a mugger, where would you rather ply your trade? Would you rather be mugging people in Chicago, where only criminals have guns, or Dallas, where there is a good chance your potential victim has a bigger gun than you do?
It may also interest you to know, that from 1960-2005, crime in the US rose 313% per 100,000 residents of the US (FBI Uniform Crime Report). Gun control, as we know it, started in 1968. So that's what 40 years of gun control have done to control crime.
When the UK banned guns in 1997 , the violent crime rate took off like a rocket, and didn't even level off until '05.
My own experience: my wife and I were being tracked by a couple of guys in a semideserted mall close to an exit. Classic mugging set-up-- making hand signals and whistles to each other. They disappeared as soon as it became obvious we were aware of them.
So I go to pee. I was doing my business when one of them comes running around the corner headed toward me. I turn toward him. With my unoccupied hand, I start to draw something out of my pocket. It happened to be a concealed handgun. But it might as well have been a kleenex. Seeing the motion, the guy stopped in his tracks and beat a rather hasty retreat. Never even had to show the gun.
Point being-- the very fact that I might have been drawing a gun was sufficient to deter the robbery.
Sadly, Timmy T. isn't a very good journalist. Good journalists get their facts straight--especially those that are easily researched.
Timmy tells us Chicago has the second highest murder rate in the country. That's not even close; cities such as Atlanta, Buffalo, Cleveland, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Detroit have higher murder rates---and that's not an all-inclusive list.
Second, Timmy T. uses some very dubious websites as references. One of his cites goes to an internet forum.
Third, Timmy T. reaches some laughable conclusions. One, he says that crime is down in DC after gun laws were relaxed in that city. That's true but is it because the laws were changed? After little more than a year, Timmy T. has decided this decrease means gun laws don't work. Yet, without looking at Chicago's decreasing homicide rates over a peeriod of two decades--Timmy decides the law just isn't working.
"Yet, without looking at Chicago's decreasing homicide rates over a peeriod of two decades"
Omitting that the homicide rates increased for about a decade after their strict gun laws.
too bad prayforsnotrock can get NONE of her facts correct
prayforgreenrocks==I wish you would at least attempt to tell the truth
Hey Jade, Chicago's homicide rate exceeded 500 last year. That's high enough for me.
The ban doesn't work. I lived there for a year and a half, and I heard gunfire coming from the project up the street (Cabrini Green) every weekend. I saw rampant street crime, and when I called 911 to report same, nobody answered the phone.
Have YOU ever been to Chicago Jade? And I mean the City of Chicago, not the suburbs you try to include as part of the city (when it suits your agenda).
Pencils cause misspellings.
Fast food causes obesity.
I live in Chicago. You cannot legally buy a handgun (or any other type of gun) in Chicago, but it is easy to buy a gun in the city.
Which is why the bans in DC and Chicago are such failures--the criminals are at least as well armed as they were before the law was passed and the victims are NOT
"Law enforcement agencies overwhelmingly favor bans because it allows them to arrest criminals just for having handguns on them."
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Law enforcement officers overwhelmingly support the right to bear arms. First of all, as you said, it's clear that handgun bans only disarm the lawful, not the lawless. That's not what cops want. Second of all, the police know bad crime can be, and how unlikely it is that they will ever get to a crime scene in time to prevent it. Finally, the police know they won't be cops forever. Most of them still want the ability to protect themselves after they turn in their badge.
From a 2005 survey of over 22,000 police chiefs and sheriffs:
http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf
* 92% of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights for sport and self defense;
* 95% of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources
* 60% believe a system of nationwide concealed carry would reduce violent crime.
You, my friend are 100% right!
I'm a old retired cop and I would prefer anyone with out a felony conviction to carry a handgun. The people would be real surprised just how courteous and polite everyone is to one another when everyone in the room is packing!
Besides the handgun ban, Chicago also bans most semi-auto long guns and requires annual registration for the ones allowed (unless you're an Alderman named Mell). You cannot legally purchase a firearm in Illinois w/o a license called a FOID.
Over 90% of murders are committed by prior criminals. Over 70% of victims also have a record.
55% are directly gang related.
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 Gun Free 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.
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.) are the people in the 2nd amendment the same people in the 1st, 4th, and the 9th ?
"fewer guns, fewer crimes..."
does anyone realize that before handguns were so common, people still committed crimes? sure, they used knives, clubs, etc., but a motivated criminal won't straighten out just because he can't get his hands on a firearm! how out of touch and unrealistic can people be! you think street gangs, crack heads, burglars, car thiefs, bankrobbers, and the mafia will just go back to college and seek an honest living once they realize it's gotten too hard/impossible to smuggle handguns...sure, just like how prohibition got everyone to stop drinking.
"A year after its ban was struck down only 550 residents have registered handguns with the police."
Mostly because the processes to buy a gun in DC is ridiculously onerous.
"It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html
Cna anyone link a source that breaks down # of crimes with legal guns and illegal guns?
Might not have the exact report your asking for, but there are links to related reports, sites, etc.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm#findings
"Law enforcement agencies overwhelmingly favor bans because it allows them to arrest criminals just for having handguns on them."
It is untrue that LEAs overwhelming favor bans.
It is true that minority which do favor then tend favor them for the reason you gave.
Great article. One issue I see with what he says though: "Legalize handguns and they can no longer arrest people just for walking down the street carrying a piece."
Legalizing handguns doesn't mean you can just walk down the street carrying a piece. Plus, I'd be willing to bet that most of the kids on the south-side "walking around with guns" now, don't even have a FOID card! Legalizing handguns does not instantly give people FOID cards and make illegally obtained guns, suddenly legal.
Plus there is plenty of evidence and numerous reports to show that areas with the strictest gun control tend to have the highest amount of violent crimes(and vice versa).
IMO, people who are outraged by firearm-related death would probably do more good by trying to do something to prevent auto-related deaths.
It's kinda like, I sit down and write a profane dirty letter...we'll just blame it on the pencil.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
