The McDonald v. Chicago amicus brief for the International Law Enforcements Educators & Trainers Association (and other law enforcement organizations, and criminologists) showed that after Chicago enacted its handgun ban, its violent crime rate rose sharply. Pre-ban, Chicago had a violent crime rate 1.12 times greater than the violent crime rate of the 24 other largest cities. (That is, Chicago’s violent crime rate was 12% higher than that of the 24 other cities.) Post-ban, Chicago’s crime rate soared immediately, and remained 67% higher than the other large cities. The possibility that Chicago’s sudden and long-standing deterioration compared to other large cities is less than 1 in 100,000. Details are presented at pages 17–22 of the brief, and the appendices. John Lott, in an opinion column ....PS The wording above is tricky... not sure I got it.... Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. Criminal behavior continues... I don’t see that as a point. The point is that we allow criminal behavior into the system and acknowledge it is a reality and do our best to take the most detrimental element out of the act. Knowing that law abiding citizens will also carry guns will force criminals to not take the risk of facing life and death. Beating up old ladies will continue until the old ladies clarify their intent to use arms. Once the old ladies arm themselves then the criminal’s best bet is to catch one off guard and run before a gun is acquired. The idea is to make crime a situation where perhaps property can be taken, but property is taken from those who don’t protect themselves. The problem is still there, it just is less devastating... and that is a good thing. I used to be against gun control because it became apparent that there was a proportion a person could protect himself with. Does the average person need a warhead let alone a grenade launcher? The person to protect himself from tyranny needs to have the ability to immediately respond with a punitive act. A need for ballistics becomes questionable due to it’s immediacy limits. Cameras as evidence... (sadly not evidence in all states and frankly a crime in some states if one records the police) then does the rest to protect from tyranny and record the reason for the punitive response.
