I think that BJD has drawn a different inference than I did from this article. Whilst I agree that the article was inexpertly written, I see that point that the writer is trying to establish. In 2003 Chicago took from Washington DC the dubious honour of being "the murder capital of the world". This means to say that Chicago has the greatest number of homicides recorded on the planet.
An interesting parlance needs to be brought to attention here before I continue the point. Murder is a civilian action; what we are witnessing in Iraq currently is mainly the result of a military prescence and as such the definition is blurred somewhat. Also of import is that civilian police in Iraq I'm sure are not able to produce accurate statistics on constitues a civilian case of murder per capita.
Having said that, the case of Chicago should be compared to a like civilian state not ravaged by the sounds of war. Chicago has roughly 9.1 million people or double that of the state of New South Wales, or roughly the same size as the city of London, however Chicago being in the USA has one major thing against it... its laws. The number of murders in a country by inference must go up in accordance with the propensity and the ability to carry them out. The USA has enshrined in law the "right to bear arms", see below.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment
The NRA (National Rifleman's Association) is one of the largest lobby groups in US politics and may be a contributing factor as to why the law has never been repealed. 451 in Chicago must be compared to 247 in London or 158 in Sydney (assuming Sydney had 9 million people. Between Sep 2003 and Sep 2004 there were 79 cases of murder).
Now I don't know about you, but it seems that if you lived in Chicago, the chance of being murdered is roughly 2.8 times that of living in Sydney. If you then lay this across the entire of the US, for 250 million people approximately 12,500 people would be murdered every year; yet this is the best record in five years. This is something to be pleased about?
Now I'm not suggesting somthing simplistic like "if you remove the guns then you remove the problem"... actually yes I am. Of course the entire problem will not disappear overnight, but the Second Amendment by its very existance has created a culture whereby firearms are reasonably accessable. No longer does the country need to assert its independance, no longer do the wilds need to be tamed either.
The Second Amendment is an archaic, stupid piece of legislation; the sooner it gets removed the better.