Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot blamed guns brought in from Republican-controlled states.
That's a cheap dodge. She ran for Mayor by touting her record as an aggressive prosecutor, and she promised to ameliorate the crime problem in Chicago. She doesn't get to throw her hands up and say, "oh well. It's all because of Indiana."
Yes, guns move across state lines. That's nothing new. Guns found in crime scenes in, say, Georgia come from all over the place as well. She wants to push the narrative that people are going to Indiana or Wisconsin, buying up guns, and feeding them directly into the illicit market in Illinois. This isn't true. The vast majority of guns recovered in Chicago have
been in circulation for over a decade. Those guns were probably in a lot of places before they ended up in Garfield Park or Riverdale. Perhaps Mayor Lightfoot should consider actually prosecuting people for trafficking, which is something the city rarely does.
This is part of a larger problem. The clearance rate for homicides in Chicago is 18%. The vast majority of these homicides are focused in 7 or 8 neighborhoods, which taken together, only cover a few square miles. Yet those neighborhoods impoverished and hopeless (I know, I've been there), and none of the city's Big Fancy Renewal Programs ever seem to be focused there. The cops don't do routine patrols there. The schools are a disaster. Kids growing up there don't have a chance. Mayor after Mayor has promised to do something, but once the cameras are off, all the money goes to making the city attractive to tourists and building fancy malls along 294.
The plain fact is this: when they passed their handgun ban in 1982, the promise was that it would reduce the homicide rate. They didn't tell their citizens, "well, this might help, but don't expect much because Indiana." The equation was handgun ban=lower homicide. Spoiler: it didn't. Absent any other policing or prosecution initiatives, the murder rate rose, even when the national average started to plummet in the 1990s.
Given its obvious and total failure, you'd think they wouldn't mind repealing it. Nope. They clung to it for dear life, screaming it was a vital
public safety measure, even as the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. And why? Because their city is a mess, the current situation is the result of decades of corruption and mismanagement, and they think they can get the public off their backs if they just pass a ban or do a buyback for the cameras. Until that changes, the bleeding will continue.
