Crime In Chicago Since Concealed Carry
BY Herschel Smith
12 years, 7 months ago
On July 9, 2013, a bill to recognize Illinois gun owners’ right to carry concealed firearms was passed by both chambers of the state Legislature. Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns.
Gun control advocates warned that high-crime areas, like Chicago, would only see more violence if residents were allowed to carry guns in public.
In reality, the opposite may be happening.
On Tuesday, the Chicago Police Department announced that the city experienced its lowest murder rate since 1958 in the first quarter of 2014. There were 6 fewer murders than the same timeframe in 2013 — a 9 percent drop — and 55 fewer murders than 2012, police said.
Further, there were reportedly 90 fewer shootings and 119 fewer shooting victims compared to last year. There have also been 222 fewer shootings and 292 fewer shooting victims compared to the first quarter in 2012.
[ … ]
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy called the drop in crime a “trend.” He attributed the drop to the “talent level of individuals” on the police force, “intelligent policing strategies” and other programs. He did not mention the concealed carry law.
It makes sense, of course, but here is the problem with such reports. John Lott is mentioned, and he continually makes claims about the prevalence of guns being inversely proportion to crime.
Whatever. I’ve made the point that what happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial. My rights involve me and my family, and don’t depend on being able to demonstrate that the general health effects in society are not a corollary to or adversely affected by the free exercise of them.
It’s insidious and even dangerous to argue gun rights as a part of crime prevention based on statistics because it presupposes what the social planners to, i.e., that I’m part of the collective.
|
|
[…] previously argued against John Lott’s procedure (especially when it is employed as an exclusive-use procedure) […]
[…] As I’ve said before concerning gun rights and favorable statistical outcomes: […]
[…] have made it clear here and here that I do not support making innate rights contingent upon favorable statistical […]
[…] to comment. I’ve explained before that I don’t like John Lott’s approach (here and in Holding Human Rights Hostage To Favorable Statistical Outcomes). See also Kurt Hofmann on […]
[…] discussed this before. I’ve made the point that “what happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial. My rights involve me and […]