Legislating the use and availability of firearms has been a controversial point of debate in the United States, given the ambiguity of the second amendment and the proliferation of mass shootings in recent history. Regardless of political motivation, the goal of modern firearm legislation has been to use the ambiguities of the second amendment to reduce the availability of said firearms in metropolitan areas with the hope of reducing gun related violence. Looking at both older and modern legislation, this article examines the effectiveness of this gun-control legislation with a focus on the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois since these locations bolstered some of the heftiest firearm legislation through the years. This article strives to remove personal biases and avoid being attached to any one set of ideals. In seeking raw data, one seeks empirical truth.

In 1981, Illinois made national headlines as the suburb of Morton Grove, a suburb just north of Chicago, became the very first US municipality to ban the ownership of all handguns. This came at a time when violent crime was running rampant through Chicago and its suburbs. The ban at Morton Grove eventually led to the city of Chicago banning the use and sale of handguns in 1982. This dominoed into all surrounding suburbs that one-by-one banned or otherwise severely restricted the use and sale of handguns (Rubin, 2005). The dates of these legislative events are interesting when one examines the crime data during that time period.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) the state of Illinois had a mini-peak of violent crime in 1980, a year before Morton Grove passed their ban on handguns. The UCR states that in the year of 1980 there were 91,753 violent crimes reported to the police. In the following year the numbers go down by almost 1000 cases. The year after that, 1982, the numbers go down by a little over 2,000 cases. In 1985, the number of violent crimes reaches a low not seen since the late 70’s with 82,448 cases of violent crimes reported to the police. This evidence suggests that these bits of legislation worked after a fashion. In five years, cases of violent crime drop by roughly 9,000 (“Estimated Crime in Illinois,” 2010). This is significant and shows that the ban on handguns did, in fact, have some nominal effect across the whole Illinois metropolitan area. These small victories were short-lived, however.

In 1986 the cases of violent crime jump back up to 93,454, a figure higher than that seen in 1980 before the handgun ban (“Estimated Crime in Illinois,” 2010). This spike in violent crime seems unconnected with anything upon first glance. The ban on handguns was still very much in effect, and the population even decreased in Illinois by a few thousand. However, Illinois did not stand alone in this violent crime surge. The spike touched metropolitan areas nationwide. Isabel Wilkerson (1987) of The New York Times suggests that the surge represents a rise in the use of cocaine, and that the rise in violent crime is thanks in part to gangs, fueled by cocaine, fighting over territory. What this seems to indicate is that while gun control legislation does have an effect, it doesn’t have a lasting impact on the reduction of violent crime rates. There are a few more cases that show a similar pattern.

The Uniform Crime Reports show that violent crime rates in Illinois continued to rise until the all-time high was reached in 1995, topping out at 117,836 cases in that year alone. After 1995 violent crimes begin to steadily decrease in number (“Estimated crime in Illinois,” 2010). This may correspond with the federal ban on assault weapons passed in September of 1994 by President Clinton. The ban made the possession and sale of certain semi-automatic weapons illegal nationwide. It is true that Illinois and the rest of the nation saw a steady decrease in violent crime, but it may not be a direct result of this weapons ban. The ban expired in 2004 and despite efforts to re-vitalize it, the ban was never reenacted. There was a small spike of a 1,000 cases in Illinois in 2005 which may indicate an effect of the bill expiring. However, the numbers in that year were still far below the numbers seen in the 90s. It is important to remember that though the nationwide assault weapons ban ended in 2004, Chicago and its many municipalities still maintained a handgun and assault weapon ban. The nationwide assault weapon ban really only affected these locations when criminals from one state with access to assault weapons and hi-cap magazines moved into the area.

The ban on handguns in the City of Chicago and its municipalities was lifted in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled the ban to be unconstitutional. As previously stated, there has been a steady decline of violent crime in Illinois, and after the court’s ruling, the numbers continued to go down at the same rate as before. Those in favor of gun control would argue that the crime rates would go back up, while individuals not in favor of it would argue that the crime rates would drop significantly when the ban was lifted. Neither of these events has yet to happen. The violent crime rate has been steadily decreasing in Illinois and nationwide. Just from the events pointed out in this section, the legislation concerning the regulation of firearms seems to have little long lasting effects in the trends of violent crime, one way or the other. The rates are decreasing regardless of legislation.

Despite the decrease in violent gun-related crime over the years, there has been an increase in mass shootings, which continues to stir the gun control debate. The information in this article indicates that neither side is entirely correct, however. Nevertheless, even if one side could possibly be right, it is impossible to determine the true effectiveness of gun control legislation in the scientific sense because there is no control test in which to measure against.

These vague answers do little in the way of assuaging those who have suffered at the hands of gun violence, though. So what is the solution? What should we do?

By far the most interesting solution to this issue is presented by Gary Slutkin (2013) in a TED Talk. He states that “violence is, in a way, behaving like a contagious disease.” During the talk, Slutkin shows a map that shows the locations of violent crime in Chicago, and he points out how the instances tend to cluster much like an infectious disease. To outline his point, he brings up a picture of a cholera outbreak in Bangladesh that looks eerily similar to a map of reported violence in Chicago. Slutkin compares the fluctuating rate of violent crime in the United States to a graph of flu and pneumonia cases. Both graphs follow a similar pattern. Through his vast experiences dealing with epidemics, Slutkin claims that by treating violence like a deadly disease we can reverse the process and create “what you might call group immunity.” This is not an unforeseeable solution either. Slutkin has already begun to implement his three-fold epidemic treatment strategy. His very first experiment, dealing with the West Garfield neighborhood of Chicago, resulted in a 67 percent decrease in shootings. The results have continued to be replicated time and time again. Slutkin’s approach does not deal with legislation. It deals with people, and this article concludes that the best way to reduce violent crime is not the blanket solution that legislation provides, nor a total relaxation of all firearm restrictions, but instead the individual healthcare solution Slutkin provides.

Now with all that being said, Republicans have upheld their ban against the CDC studying the effects of gun violence. In terms of middle ground, CDC research, combined with possible non-legislative efforts of solutions like Slutkin offers, are probably the best options at this point in terms of combating both violent crime in metropolitan areas and mass shootings. This also seems to be something that a majority of Americans could support, regardless of party affiliation. We need the data before we can act though, and the CDC needs the funding so we can get the data. Unfortunately, the NRA, along with the firearms manufacturers and gun enthusiasts funding them, have a vested interest in preventing any changes to be made. So any compromise in the near future seems unlikely.

References and Further Reading:

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Uniform Crime Reports: Estimated crime in Illinois [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunC...

Rubin, E. (2005). Gun Control. Retrieved from http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/5...

Slutkin, G. (2013, Apr.). Let’s treat violence like a contagious disease [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_... contagious_disease#t-2455

Weaver, Greg S. (2002). Firearm deaths, gun availability, and legal regulatory changes: Suggestions from the data. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 823-842. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/

Wilkerson, I. (1987, January 15). Urban homicide rates in U.S. up sharply in 1986. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com