The Chicago Police Department hopes to free up the equivalent of 44 officers a day by no longer dispatching cops for certain crimes, like burglaries and car thefts in which the offender is no longer at the scene and no one is in immediate danger.
Police confirmed the change, which takes effect Sunday. Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told aldermen last year he was considering a move in that direction.
The 911 dispatch changes and redeployment of officers come in the wake of the city’s most deadly January since 2000
Hey, if liberal policy ideas are so good, why is Chicago (and the state of IL) an utter mess?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Chicago is on it's march to becoming Detroit:
The Chicago Police Department hopes to free up the equivalent of 44 officers a day by no longer dispatching cops for certain crimes, like burglaries and car thefts in which the offender is no longer at the scene and no one is in immediate danger.
Police confirmed the change, which takes effect Sunday. Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told aldermen last year he was considering a move in that direction.
The 911 dispatch changes and redeployment of officers come in the wake of the city’s most deadly January since 2000
Our state is a nightmare! There is no courage to be found inside of any Dems from Illinois. We will be asking for a federal bail out before it is all said and done.
0
Our state is a nightmare! There is no courage to be found inside of any Dems from Illinois. We will be asking for a federal bail out before it is all said and done.
The problem with this thread is it ignores recent history and the possible impact recent events have done to gun violence. It also does not take into account the various laws in Chicago and the suburbs.
On June 26, 2008, the USSC struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This caused Chicago and their municipalities to change their laws. In the months following Heller , handgun bans were repealed in the Chicago suburbs of Wilmette, Morton Grove, Evanston, and Winnetka, but Chicago and Oak Park kept their laws in effect.
On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDondald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police. Chicago's gun registration requirement is still in effect.
In fact, the only firearms restriction that remains draconian is the concealed weapons restriction, that was struck down as unconsitutional in December by the Federal Appeals Court.
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
0
The problem with this thread is it ignores recent history and the possible impact recent events have done to gun violence. It also does not take into account the various laws in Chicago and the suburbs.
On June 26, 2008, the USSC struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This caused Chicago and their municipalities to change their laws. In the months following Heller , handgun bans were repealed in the Chicago suburbs of Wilmette, Morton Grove, Evanston, and Winnetka, but Chicago and Oak Park kept their laws in effect.
On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDondald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police. Chicago's gun registration requirement is still in effect.
In fact, the only firearms restriction that remains draconian is the concealed weapons restriction, that was struck down as unconsitutional in December by the Federal Appeals Court.
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
Um, if this line of thinking were true, the "surrounding areas" would have high murder rates.
They do not.
0
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
Um, if this line of thinking were true, the "surrounding areas" would have high murder rates.
While Chicagoans saw the city's homicides rise past 500 last year, residents of the state's second largest city, Aurora, quietly observed a milestone of their own — a year without a slaying.
While Chicagoans saw the city's homicides rise past 500 last year, residents of the state's second largest city, Aurora, quietly observed a milestone of their own — a year without a slaying.
The problem with this thread is it ignores recent history and the possible impact recent events have done to gun violence.
As noted in the article I linked to: the city’s most deadly January since 2000
Face it, the silly "surrounding area lax gun laws" talking point is absurd.
Precisely.
The fact that on July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police cannot be discounted as a possible contributing factor to the rise.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The problem with this thread is it ignores recent history and the possible impact recent events have done to gun violence.
As noted in the article I linked to: the city’s most deadly January since 2000
Face it, the silly "surrounding area lax gun laws" talking point is absurd.
Precisely.
The fact that on July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police cannot be discounted as a possible contributing factor to the rise.
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
Um, if this line of thinking were true, the "surrounding areas" would have high murder rates.
They do not.
Not really true. For one, suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics.
With that being said, as I read the new laws, the decrease in regulation would allow for greater availability. One cannot discount that a criminal could drive all of 10 minutes to obtain a weapon in a Chicago suburb.
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
So, as several laws have changed over the last several years, one could argue that the loosening of restrictions have contributed to the uptick in gun violence.
Um, if this line of thinking were true, the "surrounding areas" would have high murder rates.
They do not.
Not really true. For one, suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics.
With that being said, as I read the new laws, the decrease in regulation would allow for greater availability. One cannot discount that a criminal could drive all of 10 minutes to obtain a weapon in a Chicago suburb.
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police.
Yes, because as we all know, those who murder people are likely to apply for handgun permits.
Really. They are.
0
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police.
Yes, because as we all know, those who murder people are likely to apply for handgun permits.
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
Well, I guess you can't. But the problem is murder rates were high with the handgun bans and strict regulations in effect.
Further, the idea that there has been some sort of decrease in regulation is silly. The Chicago PD are simply not handing out gun permits.
So everything you're bringing up is moot.
0
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
Well, I guess you can't. But the problem is murder rates were high with the handgun bans and strict regulations in effect.
Further, the idea that there has been some sort of decrease in regulation is silly. The Chicago PD are simply not handing out gun permits.
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police.
Yes, because as we all know, those who murder people are likely to apply for handgun permits.
Really. They are.
Actually, guns used in heat of moment acts (heat of passion, road rage, etc.) usually are obtained and owned completely legally.
But that really isn't the issue. Rather it is if the lessening of regulations has led to an increase in guns in the area, and if that increase in guns is somehow attributable.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police.
Yes, because as we all know, those who murder people are likely to apply for handgun permits.
Really. They are.
Actually, guns used in heat of moment acts (heat of passion, road rage, etc.) usually are obtained and owned completely legally.
But that really isn't the issue. Rather it is if the lessening of regulations has led to an increase in guns in the area, and if that increase in guns is somehow attributable.
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
Well, I guess you can't. But the problem is murder rates were high with the handgun bans and strict regulations in effect.
Further, the idea that there has been some sort of decrease in regulation is silly. The Chicago PD are simply not handing out gun permits.
So everything you're bringing up is moot.
There absolutely has been a decrease in regulation. The city went from an outright ban to an avenue to obtain ownership.
As I said above, the question is whether that has led to increased firearms and if that is somehow attributable to an increase in current violence.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I am not suggesting that this has happened, but when crime statistics increase, you cannot discount the impact of recent legislation as a contributing factor.
Well, I guess you can't. But the problem is murder rates were high with the handgun bans and strict regulations in effect.
Further, the idea that there has been some sort of decrease in regulation is silly. The Chicago PD are simply not handing out gun permits.
So everything you're bringing up is moot.
There absolutely has been a decrease in regulation. The city went from an outright ban to an avenue to obtain ownership.
As I said above, the question is whether that has led to increased firearms and if that is somehow attributable to an increase in current violence.
Many Americans still own guns even in cities with tough or soft laws. Some cities have high crime rates regardless of laws. Generally, police favor tougher laws since they deal with crimes.
0
Many Americans still own guns even in cities with tough or soft laws. Some cities have high crime rates regardless of laws. Generally, police favor tougher laws since they deal with crimes.
The fact that on July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police cannot be discounted as a possible contributing factor to the rise.
before it was just, numbers, stats and reality that he got owned on...
it seems like the new trend is time...
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Precisely.
The fact that on July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police cannot be discounted as a possible contributing factor to the rise.
before it was just, numbers, stats and reality that he got owned on...
Actually, guns used in heat of moment acts (heat of passion, road rage, etc.) usually are obtained and owned completely legally.
But that really isn't the issue. Rather it is if the lessening of regulations has led to an increase in guns in the area, and if that increase in guns is somehow attributable.
Except there hasn't really been a "lessening of regulations" at all.
See, not a single gun shop exists in the City of Chicago because they are outlawed. There are no rifle ranges, "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are banned.
And, In Chicago, the rules for owning a handgun — Owners must seek a Chicago firearms permit, which requires firearms training, a background check and a state-mandated firearm owner’s identification card, which requires a different background review for felonies and mental illness.
7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit
So again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense.
There are no examples of gun control success stories in America and there are no examples of decreasing gun regulations leading to more crime or shootings. In fact, states with more liberal concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Actually, guns used in heat of moment acts (heat of passion, road rage, etc.) usually are obtained and owned completely legally.
But that really isn't the issue. Rather it is if the lessening of regulations has led to an increase in guns in the area, and if that increase in guns is somehow attributable.
Except there hasn't really been a "lessening of regulations" at all.
See, not a single gun shop exists in the City of Chicago because they are outlawed. There are no rifle ranges, "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are banned.
And, In Chicago, the rules for owning a handgun — Owners must seek a Chicago firearms permit, which requires firearms training, a background check and a state-mandated firearm owner’s identification card, which requires a different background review for felonies and mental illness.
7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit
So again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense.
There are no examples of gun control success stories in America and there are no examples of decreasing gun regulations leading to more crime or shootings. In fact, states with more liberal concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
Except there hasn't really been a "lessening of regulations" at all.
See, not a single gun shop exists in the City of Chicago because they are outlawed. There are no rifle ranges, "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are banned.
And, In Chicago, the rules for owning a handgun — Owners must seek a Chicago firearms permit, which requires firearms training, a background check and a state-mandated firearm owner’s identification card, which requires a different background review for felonies and mental illness.
7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit
So again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense.
There are no examples of gun control success stories in America and there are no examples of decreasing gun regulations leading to more crime or shootings. In fact, states with more liberal concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
Notice how you make a general characterization rather than address the substance of the post? Do you know why you do that?
I suppose you did try and provide statistics. They just happened to be wrong.
This is not an attempt at showing the merits of or against gun control. I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
No matter how it is spun, changing a law from no handguns allowed to allowing them, even if significant restrictions remain, cannot be discounted as a factor when it leads to an increase in the amount of guns in a community.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Except there hasn't really been a "lessening of regulations" at all.
See, not a single gun shop exists in the City of Chicago because they are outlawed. There are no rifle ranges, "Assault Weapons" and "high capacity magazines" are banned.
And, In Chicago, the rules for owning a handgun — Owners must seek a Chicago firearms permit, which requires firearms training, a background check and a state-mandated firearm owner’s identification card, which requires a different background review for felonies and mental illness.
7,640 people currently hold a firearms permit
So again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense.
There are no examples of gun control success stories in America and there are no examples of decreasing gun regulations leading to more crime or shootings. In fact, states with more liberal concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates.
Notice how you make a general characterization rather than address the substance of the post? Do you know why you do that?
I suppose you did try and provide statistics. They just happened to be wrong.
This is not an attempt at showing the merits of or against gun control. I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
No matter how it is spun, changing a law from no handguns allowed to allowing them, even if significant restrictions remain, cannot be discounted as a factor when it leads to an increase in the amount of guns in a community.
I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
Well sure, but there is no "significant change" here. It is very, very difficult to legally purchase and carry a firearm in the City of Chicago. And, carying concealed is still not legal.
0
I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
Well sure, but there is no "significant change" here. It is very, very difficult to legally purchase and carry a firearm in the City of Chicago. And, carying concealed is still not legal.
Notice how you make a general characterization rather than address the substance of the post?
Mind you, from the author of:
suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics
Oh, and the statistics I provided came from the New York Times.
And there is a difference between a FOID Card and a Chicago Firearms Permit (which is what I referenced). So why don't you know that?
So no, nothing I posted was wrong.
You can post as many of as you want but it doesn't help your point (or lack of it).
You care equatiing the statement "so again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense" with "suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics."
Wow. Just wow.
Also, according to Illinois law, a person can possess a weapon with a FOID card.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Notice how you make a general characterization rather than address the substance of the post?
Mind you, from the author of:
suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics
Oh, and the statistics I provided came from the New York Times.
And there is a difference between a FOID Card and a Chicago Firearms Permit (which is what I referenced). So why don't you know that?
So no, nothing I posted was wrong.
You can post as many of as you want but it doesn't help your point (or lack of it).
You care equatiing the statement "so again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense" with "suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics."
Wow. Just wow.
Also, according to Illinois law, a person can possess a weapon with a FOID card.
I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
Well sure, but there is no "significant change" here. It is very, very difficult to legally purchase and carry a firearm in the City of Chicago. And, carying concealed is still not legal.
Simply because you say there has been no significant change does not make it true.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I am merely pointing out that when there is a significant change to a 'control' group, it adds an element to said control group that cannot be discounted.
Well sure, but there is no "significant change" here. It is very, very difficult to legally purchase and carry a firearm in the City of Chicago. And, carying concealed is still not legal.
Simply because you say there has been no significant change does not make it true.
You care equatiing the statement "so again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense" with "suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics."
Actually, I'm not. Because what I said has facts and data behind it, what you said does not.
As another point of fact:
Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.
There is simply no reason to believe that "cannot be discounted as a factor when it leads to an increase in the amount of guns in a community" is a serious question or point.
There are zero examples of fewer gun restrictions leading to more shootings or crimes.
There are zero examples of gun control success stories in America.
0
You care equatiing the statement "so again, everything you're suggesting is utter nonsense" with "suburbian crime rates are often figured into a cities criminal statistics."
Actually, I'm not. Because what I said has facts and data behind it, what you said does not.
As another point of fact:
Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.
There is simply no reason to believe that "cannot be discounted as a factor when it leads to an increase in the amount of guns in a community" is a serious question or point.
There are zero examples of fewer gun restrictions leading to more shootings or crimes.
There are zero examples of gun control success stories in America.
Hot Forum Topics
