Compared to Chicago the murders from firearms is slim to none. This happens all the time in Chicago but nobody ever hears about it, maybe because it's black on black crime?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nce-leaves-71-shot-11-dead-weekend/914141002/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.57b78ec89e85
I can't get access to the second article, but from what that link tells me, it's not going to disprove anything I've said. The first one certainly doesn't.
Please explain to me again how Alaska is the most violent state. This is a city with strictest gun laws in the country!
Because statistically it has more gun violence per capita? Also
Chicago doesn't have the strictest gun laws at all, despite how frequently certain politicians and their friends in the "media" like to pretend that's the case. Also worth noting that article supports a lot of the other things i've said too.
You obviously don't seem to grasp many gang leaders have connects to the black market. This is how they obtain their firearms so no it won't do good. Or lots are stolen. A majority of gang members cannot obtain guns legally due to known gang affiliation or criminal history.
You obviously don't seem to grasp that
60% of the guns used in Chicago gang shootings were obtained in cities outside of Illinois. It doesn't matter what windy path they take into Chicago, the point is that it's too hard to get guns in Chicago so the gangs you like to keep bringing up have to go to places where guns are more easily obtained. Even if they don't buy them legally, the guns are still originating from a legal source that can only filter down so easily to the illegal buyers because they get into circulation so easily to begin with.
You also seem to not understand how the black market works. The majority of gangs are not enormous organised crime syndicates like the big cartels with loads of cash. Most street gangs, like the ones in Chicago, are composed pretty much entirely of people in a low socio-economic bracket who, even allowing for criminal activity, most of them do not have the money to really have access to the black market. The thing about the black market, is that it's very, very expensive. That's why cartels are so rich, because it's impossible to get drugs legally they can charge whatever they want. Black market guns are expensive, I've shown you links explaining his multiple times in the past.
And again, gangs are the cause of most of the crime in America. Tho it's an older link it's still relevant today.
https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1
It doesn't matter if gangs are responsible for 100% of the crime, that doesn't disprove that reducing access to guns would reduce gun crime. It proves that gangs like to use guns.
and yet 60% of the guns they're getting their hands on come from outside Chicago. Almost like it's hard to steal a gun or otherwise illegally obtain them when there's less around. I will remind you, gangs aren't
manufacturing guns. All those illegal guns are being made and sold legally to begin with. If less guns were being made and sold, less would find their way onto the black market.
Also there's a well-known trend, I've given you links about it before as well, of gang members or affiliates who do not have criminal records buying a weapon, giving or selling them to fellows with records and then reporting them stolen. So even if that statistic of yours actually disproved me in any way, that would have distorted its numbers.
Didn't come across any links stating the percentage of gang members with felonies but reading the above should answer it for you.
Strangely enough, being articles on totally different topics, they don't.
Maybe it's because people outside of the country I live in know little to nothing about what actually goes on in my country and our cultures but act like they do? Ever think of that??
This doesn't actually answer my point at all, but since you bring it up I guess I'll point out that living outside the US doesn't have any impact on my access to information about it. I clearly know a lot more than you're trying to give me credit for, because I can do research, and quite frankly the argument that not living in the US somehow invalidates anything I've said is the weakest in a series of very weak arguments.
By that logic, palaeontologists don't know about dinosaurs because they weren't alive in the cretaceous, physicists don't know anything about particles because they've never been sub-atomic and astronomers don't know anything about space because they've never been there. It's logic tat doesn't hold up.
