Why Chicago’s Crime Rate is So High

Published by the LearnAboutGuns.com Author on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 pm
LearnAboutGuns.com > Gun Related News > Why Chicago’s Crime Rate is So High

As reported, about 1/2 of Chicago Public School students drop out between their freshman and senior years of high school.

Individuals that lack a good education are much less likely to be able to get a decent job.  Such individuals are also much more likely to end up as criminals.  Rather than recognizing this, Chicago politicians blame guns (but keep guns for themselves).  Chicago is the “murder capitol” of the United States, despite a ban on handguns that has been around longer than I’ve been alive.  More gun restrictions won’t change that fact, and will instead only leave law abiding citizens defenseless.  Until Chicago politicians address the lack of education and other causes of crime, things just aren’t going to improve.

Note: I am in no way suggesting that everyone who has dropped out of high school is a criminal, or anything else so ridiculous.  Although I value education highly and have spent the last 7 years of my life in college and law school, I don’t think that those who choose to forgo higher eduction are bad people or in any way lesser members of society.  Each person should pursue the career that is right for them and that will make them happy!  Instead, I’m pointing out the clearly established fact that, at the societal level, there is a strong connection between a lack of education and criminality, and that improving education of our children is an effective way to prevent and reduce crime.

Tags for this article: , , , , , ,

  • http://yahoo Steven Tetreault

    I think you should look at stats on gun related deaths and the money spent in our emergency rooms paying for the uninsured shooting.each In countries like Japan and Englind where there are very few shootings, Millions of dollars and lives are saved. It would save millions of unnecessary deaths and money if we banned guns all together. All the foolish excuses for having individual gun ownership in this country is senseless.

  • http://www.learnaboutguns.com LearnAboutGuns.com


    Thanks for the comment. I find myself in disagreement with your conclusion for the following reasons:

    Firstly, banning guns doesn't take them out of the hands of criminals (who are often the most negligent people when it comes to unintentional shootings. I would encourage you to take a look at these posts:

    Using England as an example, gun related crime rose by about 40% after the gun ban was enacted: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/26/more-pro

    Moreover, banning guns wouldn't save lives. Instead, it just leads to a situation where those willing to break the gun ban law are the only ones with guns, which means criminals have defenseless victims: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/05/24/chicago-

    Even if gun bans were to take guns out of the hands of criminals, they would just use other tools (and their physical strength) to harm their victims. http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/08/criminal… Since most criminals are young males, a situation where no one has a gun is one where the victim tends to lose :http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/06/08/another-elderly-british-citizen-left-defenseless-tortured-to-death-in-his-own-home/

    Getting to your economic arguments, I would again mention that a gun ban won't take guns out of the hands of law breakers, who make up a huge percentage of the negligent shooting cases anyway: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/09/23/an-unint
    Instead, such a gun ban would mean more harmed victims, whose injuries and lost productivity would cost money. Furthermore, when a crime victim shoots the criminal in self defense, and the criminal dies, there is no expensive trial or expensive prison sentence for the criminal. Nor can that criminal go on to harm any future victims, with the resulting monetary costs. Even if a crime victim just holds the criminal at gunpoint, that criminal can be efficient prosecuted and jailed, before they cause more financial loss to their victims and society by committing another crime. This career criminal is a perfect example – he went on committing crimes that cost victims and society money, until an armed victim put a permanent stop to him: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/26/career-c

    More importantly, armed self defense is a basic human right, and a constitutional right. As such, it is not subject to the sort of economic arguments that you made, even if they were accurate (which I dispute, of course.) http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/26/district
    If you really believe it is proper to start eliminating our sacred rights in the name of saving money, then you may want to start with the 4th Amendment, since allowing the police to search people and homes whenever they want will cut down on crime dramatically. I, however, value all our rights.

    I would encourage you to take a look at these self defense cases, where armed citizens have saved themselves from death, rape, kidnapping, and other terrible crimes by and through their gun ownership: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-ex
    Can you really try to put a price on saved lives, especially when the reasoning that you're using to argue that a gun ban would save lives is rather flawed?

    Finally, I would suggest that you stick to arguing the points at issue, rather than stooping to calling the opposing viewpoint "foolish" and "senseless." Doing so doesn't advance your viewpoint, or help the debate at all.

  • http://www.learnaboutguns.com LearnAboutGuns.com

    I decided to make my above response into a full fledged post. That post responds more thoroughly to Steven's anti gun argument.

    The post can be seen here: http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/10/19/the-flaw