I googled them both: here is London's and here is Chicago's result I got and went with it. You want to go with 2.7 million, okay, that is 70% smaller so let's make the number of London rapes 70% smaller...that would be 2,505 compared to Chicago's 1,841. Not as impressive, but you are going to go with the reasoning, armed Chicago women correlates with the lower number of rapes and not armed Chicagoans correlates with the high number of homicides?
Ahhh. You base your life on the first Google hit someone is paying to get you to see. LOL. I guess that explains your confusion about firearms. Why would we reduce the number of rapes? Are you admitting incorrect data there as well? We can’t just make up data to fit our narrative my friend. Well you can, but it has destroyed your credibility here. I’ve now checked your rape statistics and they are accurate. Your population of Chicago stat is incorrect. The rape rate of London is only slightly higher by official statistics. You are comparing Chicago metro to London city proper. You either need to use both cities or both metros. We can’t just pick numbers we like. Of course if we really wanted to compare we would have to consider little sex crime in Chicago makes it into official stats. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-chicago-police-sex-assault-arrests-20201008-ldbvyc4zubhsrpeokxotu4lrta-story.html?outputType=amp I think your angelic inhabitants of Chicago who’s only failing is the bad luck to have access to firearms are not as angelic as you pretend.
Both, if you notice, in the original population numbers citations, Chicago and London, were labeled metro. I was not trying to be misleading. So lets take the 2018 population of London 9.1 million and 8,350 rapes gives 92/100k rapes and Chicago's 2.7 million and 1,841 rapes gives 68/100k rapes. Is that better? Back to my original point....Londoners can be just as violent if not more violent but they don't have guns. You skipped over my observation that you are willing to right off the rape difference in that the Chicago women are possibly armed but not willing to concede that the reason Chicago homicide rate is 15 times higher than London's is because Chicagoans are armed. Illogical. On your citation you don't know that the same can be said of London's arrest record....get back to me on that.
Yes that’s accurate now. Nah, Londoners are nowhere near as violent as Chicago residents. Consider in 2020 there were approximately 154 murders in Chicago that did not involve a firearm. In London there were around 145 total homicides, including a handful (14) involving a firearm. Using our 2.7 million and 9.1 million figures we come up with 5.7/100K non firearm murders in Chicago and 1.6/100K TOTAL murders in London. I’m afraid the claim Londoners are more violent based on them raping a bit more is not valid. Take the guns out of Chicago stats and leave guns in London and Chicago is still over three times more violent on murders. It’s not the guns. You are correct. London cops aren’t any better than Chicago cops on putting rapists away. What do you reckon Bobbies do? They aren’t getting shot at, aren’t working murder cases, aren’t working shooting cases, and apparently aren’t solving rape cases.
What? Chicago has 15 times the homicide rate as London and it has nothing to do with easy access to a tool designed to efficiently kill? Someone is in deep denial.
Statistics are quite clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates. There is nothing illogical about acknowledging the truth. Statistics are quite clear on the matter. It has nothing to do with the availability of guns. Not that it would matter even if it did (our freedom would still be worth it), but as it happens there is no such correlation.
Maine and New Hampshire have the same "easy access", yet their homicide rate is fairly close to London's. It's not a univariate problem.
No. You are in denial. Even if we remove firearm statistics Chicago is still much more violent. You tried to claim Londoners are more violent than Chicago residents. Simply not true. Are you claiming because Chicago residents can get guns a little easier than Londoners they kill people without using a firearm more than Londoners kill with and without firearms? That’s hard to swallow. How could existence of guns make people knife others or break their neck? You are also in denial because everyone where I live has guns, yet murders by gun or other method are rare. Why is that? If guns are the problem why don’t I have Chicago violence here?
Social pathology associated with urban concentration, poverty, inequality, crime exposure leads individuals into maladjusted behaviors like violence, addiction, depression, hopelessness, lack of empathy, poor impulse control, irritability.....now add firearms to the mix.
Statistics show that adding firearms to the mix has little impact on homicide rates. Any difference in suicide rates is the cost of freedom. And freedom is well worth the cost.
So why do you have no interest in addressing the real causes of violence? You don’t care that modern society is wrecking kids and turning them into killers with no conscience or respect for human life. All you care about is one tool they use. You don’t care about the drug overdose deaths. You aren’t all over PF wanting to take drugs away. You don’t advocate for ending gang culture. You don’t even care about the poor schmucks that get wasted unless it’s done with a gun. Then you get all worked up. You are more obsessed with firearms than any gun nut. You don’t care about known factors that make kids 3-4 times more likely to commit murder. Or make kids 2-3 times more likely to live in poverty. Or make them 3 times more likely to be incarcerated. Or twice as likely to drop out of high school. Meh, who cares. Just concentrate on guns, all that other stuff will work itself out, right? As I’ve said before, the welfare of young people is not a high priority for you. Sad.
That's quite a long list of wrong assumptions. This is the gun forum if you noticed. You are more likely to find me on the the Race Relations forum rather than here, if you go look, where those themes come up and I have addressed them. I am not "obsessed" with firearms, I just have an opinion you don't like that guns are bad for and prevent a civilized society.....also the so called pretend citizen soldiers only care about themselves and not society at large.
The thing is, if you actually addressed the things I referenced, firearms would have no negative connotation in society. You want to put a band-aid ( gun control) on an arterial bleed (violent society). You keep saying and insinuating guns are the cause of violence. This simply is not true. When you keep up this false narrative it’s indicative of obsession. Are these pretend citizen soldiers the gang bangers and effed up fatherless young men that are perpetrators of almost all the violence, firearm related and otherwise?
Because that takes hard work, dedication and admitting to the root cause of the problem to be able to solve the problem, versus tossing money at it hoping it will solve it self. By and large it was liberal policies that created the problem and admitting they created the problem is what causes many of them to search for other excuses to blame it on versus to admitting their way is wrong and creates problems versus solving anything. There really is no such thing as pretend soldiers, that is just another buzzword the anti's use to insult the law abiding.
Absolutely. They can never admit it’s the social policies they love that are the actual causative force. They want their “social vices” and will never give them up. Yeh, it makes me laugh. Pretend soldiers. The friend I have who is more into guns and shooting than any of my other friends is an active duty officer Apache test pilot that did three tours in Afghanistan/Pakistan in SF before giving up his rank, going to helicopter pilot training and doing 3 more tours flying Apaches in Afghanistan. Pretend indeed.
You're extrapolating from a single data point? I met a Marine scout/sniper gunny on his way to the sandbox with some of his platoon. He told me that when he retired in two years he was never picking up a gun again. Should I extrapolate on Marines and post-service firearm ownership from that one guy?
I’m making the same point you are. The pretend soldier thing is extrapolation and stereotyping based on emotion. I’m pointing out the stereotype isn’t necessarily based on reality. People are into guns for different reasons. I use firearms almost daily for practical purposes having nothing to do with soldiering at all. Yet in threads like this I’m lumped into the pretend soldier camp because I use AR-15’s or believe I have a right to do what I want with my property. I’m glad you agree that not everyone who likes guns or believes in the 2A is a pretend soldier.
Totally unenforceable, the US cannot control the flow of illegal drugs, what makes you they they control the sale of illegal guns to criminals? All your idotic idea would do is restrict access to firearms by the law abiding and they are not the problem, but folks like you, who are not willing to address the real problem, fail to understand that.
Sorry but most of the guns from up north were sent by the US government. For instance all of the M16s and hand grenades.
Yes, unenforced laws are words on a paper. Kinda like the laws against straw purchases. Interesting, most guns? Can you back that up? So let's drop the murder laws. How is that going to work out?
1. No proof, then it's assumed you knowingly made an untrue statement. 2. All laws are not 100% complied with, so "how's that going" is a nonsense statement. The aspect you missed is deterrence.
