Why is that?

I'm talking about policies, data, outcomes, not RWers.

Your point in the preceding, please.

Then DC changed its gun policies, and the knuckledraggers moved on.

Let me just ask you this: Do you honestly believe that Chicago's gun laws are at the root of their murder rate?

And the data is in.

So, the feeling is that if we had a national law prohibiting, say, assault rifles, that we'd have an explosion of murders with assault rifles? And if we then took away that ban, that murders with assault rifles would then cease?

That's what happened in Mexico. They have a low- grade civil war, and have had for decades.

So called 'assault weapons' are illegal for Mexicans to own, and they're favored by drug gangs.

We have gangs in every major urban center of every state. They won't comply with gun bans.

I'm done.

And they'll still be driving 60MPH in a 20MPH school zone. So why even bother, eh?

NRA talking point "logic" at it's best!

It's better to trust The People to drive safely, to let them choose to do so, than to take away their cars.

Get it?

Nobody is going to take away your car. And nobody is going to take away your guns...... even if Wayne LaPierre is able to fearmonger you into buying that line of BS!

And don't forget........ seeing Alex Jones and Ted Nugent in a FEMA internment camp!

because it has more to do with culture than wanting crime control.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

RIIIIIIGHT!

So Gary Kleck is still trying to get in the spotlight?

Dang! He's a worse "attention whore" than Ted Nugent! Errmergerrrd!

has been rock something other than a star? Not quite. I thought you could better than that

he isn't a big fan of the NRA.
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Just as an observation, I noticed the "culture clash" here especially before Newtown.

Then it must be a case of unrequited love. Because the NRA just LOVES cherry picking his findings!

everyone has a case of unrequited love at least one or twice. Have you read any of his books?
Friend of my daughter took one of his classes. I had a short chat with him once. He thinks FFLs should broker private sales. So do most of what you call "NRA trolls" here.

No. To be honest...... his being an "NRA poster boy" kind of turned me off to any of his writings.

I did hear that he condemned the NRA's "President's daughters" advert. Good on him for that!

his first book, the one the NRA fell over themselves about, won him the Michael J. Hindelang award from the American Society of Criminology.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X
If you are turned off by scholarly tombs, you might need Turkish coffee and No Doze.

The neo cons and rocker/poacher that runs the NRA does the cause more harm than good.

Boy howdy! I shore nuff can't disagree with that.

The NRA used to be a pretty decent organization before it turned into a PAC for the Republican Party and started pandering to the extreme nut jobs.

I was a member for YEARS...... even long after they became "insane" (because current NRA membership was required for competition, range club membership, and some certifications that I held). But last November ...... I said "no more" and kicked them to the curb!

"If you are turned off by scholarly tombs, you might need Turkish coffee and No Doze."

I think I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version.

Gun registration would be helpful in conjunction with the constitutional right to raise a militia. Knowing what kind of guns there are, how many are available, and in what communities they are located would be very useful knowledge should we need to call on a militia for the defense of our country -- much the same way info from the draft is useful to the military.

ed for clarity

if they don't plan to confiscate later?"

Which is why everyone I know refuses to register their cars.

you don't need to register a car to own it, just drive it on a public road. Besides, the registration to generate revenue not to keep streets safe from anything other than potholes.

of all guns is beneath you gejohnston. It's an absurd talking point that the NRA, Glenn Beck and assorted others use to raise money and whip Teabaggers into states of anti-Obama paranoia. The idea that it might actually ever happen is right up there with FEMA re-education camps and black helicopters swooping down to assassinate home schoolers, and I suspect you probably know this.

the bills in MO and MN have zero chance of passing. Is there a lobby that would like to prohibit gun ownership? Yeah. Do I see it happening? No. The lobby does exist.
Most Canadians and Germans don't register their guns either. Why? Have to ask them.

to a post above asking, "Why would they want us to register our guns if there weren't plans to confiscate them?" or words to that effect.

Like I said, you're obviously smarter than that. I happen to think Democrats of whatever stripe shouldn't encourage absurd conspiracy theories peddled by Teabaggers and such.

I hadn't heard that black helicopter theme.

Forgive them, Johnston, it's Saturday night.

the general themes. And the idea that there's going to be a mass confiscation of firearms, and by Democrats, is a scare tactic unworthy of any DU'er.

who were committing the murders, it is your local drug connection and their supply system.

.... conduct their murderous rampages on their own turf.

That's a failed, dangerous policy, with or without 'the rest of the world.'

So why not dump the murder producing policy?

And yet we champion murder producing policies (gun control) as a 'solution' to gun crime.

If so, what's the right number?

And whatever that number is, why couldn't this outcome be replicated elsewhere through identical policies?

So how many people have to die before Chicago tries something else?

Don't even tell me that you expect everybody else- everybody except the Chicago political establishment- to be responsible for policy outcome.

It's all somebody else's fault.

I do agree with you, by the way. The things that people bring into the city illegally, from outside, do matter.

But here's the point: Given ALL the inputs, the gun control policy still fails.

So why continue it? Why not try a different policy?

complement the local and state regulations. There is a difference between regulations and bans. Chicago has a defacto ban. Every state regulates guns to varying degrees. So does the national government.

they can't. IL has a licensing scheme. The Gun Control Act, a federal law, prohibits going to the next state. So, how is Jamaica's gun ban going? USVI, even with with their NYC type laws and US federal laws, put them among the worst murder rates in the world.

"IL has a licensing scheme. The Gun Control Act, a federal law, prohibits going to the next state."

No licensing or background check needed for a private person to person gun sale in IL. Ditto for Indiana.

you are supposed to keep a record of the buyer's FOID.
Still a federal crime. Are they getting them from newspaper ads in Gary? Doubt it.

I'm glad to hear that IL requires you to see a FOID and keep record of private person to person firearms transaction.

But it probably doesn't do too much good in Chicago..... being so close to the IN border.

Are they getting them from newspaper ads in Gary? I doubt it too. Straw dealers usually don't like to advertise like that. Draws way too much attention.

Bingo!

Do you say that the solution is to deny ALL of the people their rights at the same time?

So that, after giving up their guns- their REAL security- they'll receive a spoken promise of 'security?' From a politician?

Local gun bans produce local-scale genocides. Chicago, for example.

National gun bans have preceded crimes against humanity in these places:

Armenia. Soviet Union. Nazi Germany. People's Republic of China. People's Democratic Republic of North Korea.
Cambodia, Rwanda...

Never again. And NEVER here. Local gun bans are bad. National gun 'regulation' (ban) is a necessary precondition to slaughter. Will it be different here, are we somehow 'protected' from the outcomes of slaughtered peoples in the last century?

Nobody is denying anybody their rights with a nationwide requirement for universal background checks for the sale of a firearm.

If a background check:
Allows a gun into the hands of taxpayers who votes-
Restricts ownership to some solely as a result of due process of law-
Comprises the sole and voluntarily complied-with extent of gun control-

Then such a structure could be a good thing. Note the aspect of voluntary compliance by The People.

And if such a law was written to state that the check process shall be in no way construed to make 'The Right of The People to keep and bear arms' into a privilege,, if background checks comprise a process which The American People have willingly and voluntarily agreed to abide by, we could have something really helpful. Such a policy would deserve, and get, moral force and popular support.

But gun control proponents, we suspect, won't leave it there. They'll go next onto bans, prohibitions, punitive taxation. And no system we can devise will be free of defect, on any side of this argument.

The corrosive danger of gun control must be considered, however. Once the Right of The People is treated as a privilege, once we allow institutional gatekeepers to say who may and who may not- for any or for no reason- own a gun, then a foundational aspect of Our Freedom rests on the chopping block, with (fill-in-the-blank-politician) standing by sharpening a meat cleaver.

The code- the Bill of Rights- just does not allow for such treatment. The Bill of Rights says 'hands off,' to the institutions, no debate or qualification. They just have no charter to harm the rights of the American People, rights they swore an oath to protect.

So if the American people decide that The Institutions may limit their gun rights any way Institutions choose, the right isn't a right any longer. It's been changed into a privilege. This is why gun owners are very jealous and suspicious of gun control proponents. They mistrust gun control's degrading, diminishing effect upon our Rights.

drug war zone, like El Paso or even San Diego. No vacuums involved there.

El Paso 2.4
San Diego 2.9
Atlanta 20.7

Chicago 15.9
DC 17.5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
FWIW, the US murder rate is 4.8 the world average is 7 per 100K

Bummer.

and one FFL to order your gun from who operates from the police station (the only other FFL is Josh Sugermann at the Violence Policy Center) and DC's system is kind of Kafkaesque. Those few who do jump through the hoops are the ones are not the people shooting up the streets. Thinking that gangbangers are going to Mr. Syke's gun store at the police station is naive at best.

in Chicago have nothing to do with each other. Now if there was a universal background check and handguns were regulated and straw purchases were stopped we'd start to reduce gun violence

You'll need that later.

with gunners. Your full of it and you know it

because you really aren't being very nice and you know it.

This stuff a has been going on for months now and the gunner memes, talking points and debate tactics are worn out.
You don't want a debate you want to win at something, well I'm not here to play games.
What I said stands on it's own.
If we had a federal back ground check law in place, along with a federal gun registration and federal laws designed to reduce straw purchases then you can make correlations between gun violence in Chicago with gun regulations. As it stands to do so is pure bull shit gunner obfuscation. And you know it and if you don't then stop repeating gunner talking points you hear or read. You are not going to hold back the tide of new gun regulation laws that are coming. Look at Colorado.
In my opinion it's time to stop playing these "debate" games. They are so obvious and so full of shit they reek.

and violence, including gun violence, has been dropping for years.
Canada on the other hand has seen an increase in murder, all by knives.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/04/homicides-statistics-canada-2011.html

francis marion: Chicago policies produce 500 funerals per year.
That's a failed, dangerous policy, with or without 'the rest of the world.'

.. last year 2012 the year you quote, chicago's violent crime rate went down ten percent, & the violent crime rate includes murder, which would have increased violent crimes only by about 100 from the year before (~510 from ~400).
.. were chicago's guncontrol policies also the reason for the lower violent crime rate last year? or just the reason for chicago's spike in murder? Can't have it both ways, francis.
.. another thing, the mcdonald chicago ruling was in 2010, which lifted chicago's handgun ban, so GUNS ARE LEGAL IN CHICAGO NOW. Going on 3 years now. There are thousands & thousands of more legal guns & legal foids in chicago now. Doesn't that make your ridiculous argument even more ridiculous?

francis: So why not dump the murder producing policy?

Ignoring the stink in your own backyard? murder rates,2011:
PROGUN MISSOURI, kansas city.. 23.4
PROGUN GEORGIA (atlanta):......... 20.7
PROGUN new orleans murder rate:.. 57.6
PROGUNG Miami florida.............. 16.8
PROGUN St Louis............................ 35.3
............Chicago murder rate:.......... 15.9

francis: And yet we champion murder producing policies (gun control) as a 'solution' to gun crime.

This is far rightwing mentality you preach. FAR rightwing.

francis marion: We don't have to run experiments, such as the ongoing Chicago experiment, whereby masses of people are deprived of human rights- it's already been done- in Armenian, Russian, Jewish, Chinese, Cambodian communities. And right here, too- in the form of Black slavery.

And this is even sicker.

hey, one good bulls eye deserves another, right?

Do you feel safer in here for some reason? Are you under the illusion that any regulars are going to support your NRA bullshit propaganda? Your SN speaks for itself. A true hero of the RW.

I would engage you on the content of your absurd OP, but I consider further evisceration of your arguments redundant at this point. Enjoy the rest of your stay, Francis!

You dont' go in for Freedom of Forum Association, I see.

If the Second Amendment is under assault in any other forum I'll cheerfully post there, too.

All this from a Quixotic foray into the public implications of gun control policy.

It's fair to stand up and question authority, certainly so when it concerns the disappearance of our rights.

You're among friends here, though not too many are rallying around your RW propaganda.
No rights are disappearing. There are no rights to have unlimited weaponry. You confuse rights with proliferation.

I notice your lack of response to my comment on your SN. Why would you use the name of a historical figure known for being an extremist hero of the ultra right. Kinda says it all.

Nobody ever said it wasn't fair to question authority. I am questioning your motives for posting on a liberal Democratic website. We don't like trolls here, especially RW trolls.

to lock them. As long as it is in National News, policies etc ...

has a very interesting member named Francis Marion. ed to add: it seems 2009 was an eventful year all around for our DUer. Would explain his sole postings to the Gungeon.

for both DU's and Utah Concealed Carry's pseudonym "Francis Marion".

Could be a coincidence, though, both choosing the name of the distasteful Swamp Fox.
Also, this one claims to live in California.

would USVI be a better lab?

But, the OP is not interested in an actual lab but creating an "experiment" with results that will be guaranteed to prove his point.

They used to point at DC and their gun ban as The Laboratory. They cannot do that anymore, so on to Chicago. The gun ban is gone in DC, but DC has higher crime rates than Chicago. Oops.

capital punishment
no exclusionary rule, so no 4th amendment rights
no lawyers present during questioning often involving beatings
you can be held up to 28 days with out charges, lawyer, etc.
force confessions allowed in court
limited access to lawyer
no jury trial, a judge voting for acquittal could damage career. That means, no fair trials
police do home visits to everyone in the neighborhood

johnston, tapdancing the night away to 'when the saints go marching in': .. After Hurricane Katrina, media attention focused on the reduced violent crime rate following the exodus of many New Orleanians. That trend is beginning to reverse itself as more people return to the city, although calculating the homicide rate remains difficult given that no authoritative source can cite a total population figure. As in other U.S. cities of comparable size, the incidence of homicide and other violent crimes is highly concentrated in certain city neighborhoods with a population of almost entirely African descent and with sites of open air drug trade. Most murder victims have criminal records. In 2003, most victims in New Orleans were killed within three months of their last arrest.. homicide rate for New Orleans metro area, includes the suburbs, was 24.4 per 100,000 in 2002.

What does this prove johnston? that ONLY new orleans has inner city problems? is largely black? katrina the problem? GONG. Add new orleans allows guns, it's a southern city. It only proves you're blowing smoke to cover francis ridiculous poststart, dunno why, he's seemingly far RW.

1 New orleans:2010 343,829 people NOLA ..60.2% AfrAmer, 33.0% White, 2.9% Asian
2 chicago: 45.0% White (31.7% non-Hispanic whites); 32.9% Black; 13.4% other race;
3 2010,Wash,DC, 50.7% Black, 38.5% White (34.8% non-H White), 3.5% Asian,

So what are you doing here johnston? playing the race card? that NOLA violent crime is 'almost entirely' in inner city black neighborhoods? that's the same predicament that exists in Washington DC which you have no problem with blaming guncontrol for.
Or is it that 'most' murder victims in N.O. have criminal records? Most can mean 50.1%, and are you so naive to think this statistic is so far off other big cities?
Or are you trying to mislead that hurricane katrina is the reason for N.O. high murder rate?
You post a self gratifying paragraph lifted from wikipedia which, evidently to your biased reasoning, absolves guns in new orleans from being a big contributing reason to their high murder rate, which has been near that high prior to katrina:
{New Orleans} wiki: homicide rate rose and fell year to year throughout the late 1990s, but the overall trend from 1994 to 1999 was a steady reduction in homicides. Beginning in 2000, the homicide rate again increased. New Orleans had the highest homicide rate of any major American city in 2000 (42.1 per 100,000 people) 2001 (44.0 per 100,000) 2002 (53.1 per 100,000) 2003 (57.7 per 100,000) 2004 (56.0 per 100,000) In 2005, there were 202 murders after 8 months a rate of 43 per 100,000

wiki too: Murders in {Chicago} peaked first in 1974, with 970 murders (murder rate 29), and again in 1992 with 943 murders, murder rate 34. Chicago, along with other major US cities, experienced a significant reduction in violent crime rates through the 1990s, eventually recording 448 homicides in 2004, the lowest total since 1965 (15.65) Chicago's homicide tally remained steady throughout 2005, 2006, and 2007 with 449, 452, and 435 respectively.
In 2008, murders rebounded to 510, .. 2010 saw Chicago's murder rate at its lowest levels since 1965. Overall, 435 homicides were recorded for the year (16.14 per 100,000), a 5% decrease from 2009. 2011 saw Chicago's murders at 431 for a murder rate of 15.94 per 100,000 for a drop of 1.2% from 2010... 2012 saw a spike in murders to 506

A more proper comparison of chicago to new orleans would be that chicago, with strict guncontrol in the 90's & 00's from 970 to 450, saw a 50% decline in it's murder rate, whereas new orleans remained at parity around 175 - 200 (with less population).
During chicago's handgun ban from mid 90's to now, the murder rate declined 50%, quite commendable. Go away johnston, & take the swamp fox with you.

murderers and murder victims are people in the drug trade armed and funded by drug users.

fully capable of speaking on his own.

gejohnston .. simply that most murderers and murder victims are people in the drug trade armed and funded by drug users.

Well that explains it then, can't be in any way the easier access to guns in new orleans, has to be the drug trade - this time.
'Last time' it was 'wealth disparity' causing all the murder & violent crime in some pro gun city, not the easy access to guns. What'll it be next time, for houston? Memphis? Richmond Va? How does Lubbock compare with el Paso? more drug trade or greater wealth disparity the reason for high crime? but never the guns.

johnston: Drug dealers don't buy guns in gun stores, and there is no evidence Chicago's gun laws had anything to do with it. If it were true, El Paso wouldn't be safer than Winnipeg.

'drug dealers don't buy guns in gun stores' you say? well that's obviously wrong & misleading, some do some don't. With the lax gun laws in red states it's far more easier for an undetected drug dealer to legally, so to speak, get a firearm, since he hasn't been identified as a drug dealer yet.
You say 'there is no evidence chicago's gunlaws had anything to do with it', referring I presume to the reduction from 970 murders in the 90's to 450 a couple years back, a reduction of 50% - sorry charlie go sucker somebody else, the issue francis marionette brought up is that guncontrol has led to murder spiking to 510, when IN FACT that's almost half what it was a decade ago, all while under a handgun ban & stricter guncontrol.

johnston: Who the fuck made you Skinner's spokesman?

Have no idea what or who you're talking about, as usual you're vague & obtuse & misleading.
And profane this time too.

project much? Sometimes profanity is appropriate.