Opposed to popular belief, Chicago has loose gun laws.

For whatever reason, people like citing Chicago as an example on how gun control doesn't work  The problem with that, however, is that it's a big misconception that Chicago has some very strict gun laws: they're actually looser than before.

In 1982 the city of Chicago banned hanguns, In a 28 year time period, murder rates started to plummet (the early 90s murder rose to a degree, but then plummeted more than before). That's all fine and dandy....  Except In 2010 the supreme court overturned Chicago's ban. Now cheap hand guns were easy to come by. Guess what happened? The murder rate skyrocketed. The proof is in this diagram:

Not only that, but in 2012 the federal court also overturned the entire state of Illinois's concealed weapons ban!

Now this graph stops at 2007, though you can easily look up the rest of the manslaughter rates/gun crime rates rising since 2010. Now tell me, why do people use Chicago as an example of gun control when Chicago has loose gun laws? Because none of them really know about the 2010 hangun ban oveturn and just like to find something and use it to support them when in reality it doesn't. Also, let's not forget Chicago is a city and that obtaining guns from city/state to city/state can be really easy. What would stop someone from Chicago to go to Milwaukee to obtain a gun, and then go back to Chicago? Nothing really.

That fact alone confuses me as to why people would use a city as an example for gun control, either for or against. If it were federal/national and it did/didn't work, then we could use the information and learn from it. It also wouldn't hurt to learn from other countries such as Great Britain, Japan, or Germany, where there are semi-strict gun laws, and barely any form of gun crime. We could take their examples, and apply it to our country, but even better. Unfortunately the cold war-type mindset of "different opinions = bad!" still rings strong in some minds, when it really shouldn't.