The Chainlink

I thought this was rather interesting. What might this mean for our city? I moved here form Minneapolis three years ago. A year before my move, Minneapolis had passed legislation allowing Conceal and Carry permits for registered hand gun owners. Some argue that similar laws decrease crime while others say it will increase. Local Minneapolis business owners reacted very thoughtfully by not allowing guns in their establishments sending a strong message of non-support for the bill. I would imagine that a similar reaction will occur here if a similar bill passes. 

The original Chicago Gun Ban is being challenged because of the Second Amendment, however, a different type of regulation will surely replace the city wide ban. Most likely a bill similar to one in Minneapolis. 

I am not a gun owner, nor do I wish to be at this time. If I were to own a gun I would keep it at a gun range in a gun locker. I would support a bill that allowed registered owners to carry a gun but only if it did not include a conceal clause. I feel that if you really feel the need to carry a gun you should have to advertise the fact openly. I feel that this would have a deeper impact on crime out of the possible options for a similar bill. I would prefer that guns did not exist and I feel strongly that Police should not carry guns either. Just curious about what others think and feel about this topic. 

Here is an article in the New York Times:



Views: 342

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think it's appropriate for civilians to carry or own handguns. However, considering the number of people who get shot every weekend, it doesn't seem that the ban has been very effective.
What might it mean for the city? Probably not a whole lot. I don't see any kind of carrying provisions being added to the books here any time soon. All it means is that homeowners (and renters, I would hope) will no longer be subject to waiting for police to arrive in the event of a forced entry. There's an old joke regarding what would be an appropriate slogan to adorn the sides of police cars with; "When seconds matter, we're just minutes away."
The Chicago gun ban and the conceal and carry permit are two very different issues. The lifting of the gun ban will not affect the rates of violence in Chicago. The violence is caused by the ever-growing gap between the haves and have nots.
I don't agree with the decision but the people that they were trying to keep from having guns would have guns if there was a ban or not. I think that there will be more paperwork and money now for people who are trying to be legit. I think thats kind of funny cuz it will probably cost you more in permits and registration just to have a gun.

I personally don't believe that handguns provide safty in forced entry accounts. They might serve as a deturant but (from my understanding) hand guns are not all that accurate. If you want self defence in your home, buy a shotgun.
i now 'have-not' my laptop...because someone who did not-have it now has it. and i want to shoot em!!

Shawn C. said:
The Chicago gun ban and the conceal and carry permit are two very different issues. The lifting of the gun ban will not affect the rates of violence in Chicago. The violence is caused by the ever-growing gap between the haves and have nots.
I don't know what led you to believing this, but you've got it backwards. A handgun in the hands of a skilled shooter is exceptionally accurate in close quarters. A blast from a shotgun, however, carries with it greater potential to inflict harm upon bystanders (like family members) in the same circumstance even if the shooter is equally skilled.

Davo said:
I personally don't believe that handguns provide safty in forced entry accounts. They might serve as a deturant but (from my understanding) hand guns are not all that accurate. If you want self defence in your home, buy a shotgun.
and shotguns are permissable at this time too. (as long as they are not sawd-off)

tho...one way of looking at it (and this is hypothetical speculation-unless there are studies on it and im too lazy to research at the moment), is that it could be a deterrant in the case of some hoodlum not walkin up on ya with a gun to mug you. you might be packin as well.

of course, there is the issue of conceal and carry...but since a gun is now allowed in the city limits, there is more of a chance that it will be carried...even if you dont have a permit.

the real concern here...is the hot heads...hot heads that happen to own a gun as well.

Davo said:
I don't agree with the decision but the people that they were trying to keep from having guns would have guns if there was a ban or not. I think that there will be more paperwork and money now for people who are trying to be legit. I think thats kind of funny cuz it will probably cost you more in permits and registration just to have a gun.

I personally don't believe that handguns provide safty in forced entry accounts. They might serve as a deturant but (from my understanding) hand guns are not all that accurate. If you want self defence in your home, buy a shotgun.
I'll agree with you on the skilled shooter part. My problem is that IMO the majority of people who own hand guns (leagaly or otherwise) are not skilled. Thats why you always hear about innocent bystandards getting shot from a stray bullit and not the person that was intended to be shot. Granted the people doing these shooting are doing so illegally. And skilled shooters are probably only using there gun in ranges legally.

Michael Perz said:
I don't know what led you to believing this, but you've got it backwards. A handgun in the hands of a skilled shooter is exceptionally accurate in close quarters. A blast from a shotgun, however, carries with it greater potential to inflict harm upon bystanders (like family members) in the same circumstance even if the shooter is equally skilled.

Davo said:
I personally don't believe that handguns provide safty in forced entry accounts. They might serve as a deturant but (from my understanding) hand guns are not all that accurate. If you want self defence in your home, buy a shotgun.
Agree with you about the shotguns, that just seems like common sense. I was a teenager when I found my stepdad's guns in our house-- shotguns are heavy! There's no way I'd be able to aim that accurately.

But I wouldn't go around assuming that the average person who keeps a gun in the home for defense purposes is a skilled shooter. Most probably are not.

My apartment was broken into a couple years ago when I was sleeping. Our computers were stolen, my sister's camera and iPod, some irreplaceable family jewelry. It was really upsetting, but in the end, it's just stuff. If I had decided to confront the intruder with a gun, I can pretty easily imagine what would happen: I would be too scared to pull the trigger, he could wrestle it away from me, maybe even shoot me. As it happened, we were just really thankful that no one got hurt.

Michael Perz said:
I don't know what led you to believing this, but you've got it backwards. A handgun in the hands of a skilled shooter is exceptionally accurate in close quarters. A blast from a shotgun, however, carries with it greater potential to inflict harm upon bystanders (like family members) in the same circumstance even if the shooter is equally skilled.
Not all shotguns are heavy (I could shoot skeet when I was 12). They are less likely to injure bystandards because shot has much less penetrative power than bullets.

heather stratton said:
Agree with you about the shotguns, that just seems like common sense. I was a teenager when I found my stepdad's guns in our house-- shotguns are heavy! There's no way I'd be able to aim that accurately.

But I wouldn't go around assuming that the average person who keeps a gun in the home for defense purposes is a skilled shooter. Most probably are not.

My apartment was broken into a couple years ago when I was sleeping. Our computers were stolen, my sister's camera and iPod, some irreplaceable family jewelry. It was really upsetting, but in the end, it's just stuff. If I had decided to confront the intruder with a gun, I can pretty easily imagine what would happen: I would be too scared to pull the trigger, he could wrestle it away from me, maybe even shoot me. As it happened, we were just really thankful that no one got hurt.

Michael Perz said:
I don't know what led you to believing this, but you've got it backwards. A handgun in the hands of a skilled shooter is exceptionally accurate in close quarters. A blast from a shotgun, however, carries with it greater potential to inflict harm upon bystanders (like family members) in the same circumstance even if the shooter is equally skilled.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the people that constitute the so-called "gun culture" in this country place a very heavy emphasis on education in regards to proper handling and use of firearms. The first and foremost commandment is, quite simply, "Never point a firearm unless you intend to pull the trigger." There is a Zen Koan-like quality to that rule which I'm certain that most people versed in firearms don't fail to appreciate.
According to the CPD, most of the recent gun violence events were committed by family members. To equate the crime levels to guns is a farse. Most guns used in violent acts are not legal guns. NYC has had legal guns for YEARS. They have more guns and more people and more haves and havenots than Chicago. And NYC has less crime than any other major US City . . . all of this anecdotal analysis can be amusing but just is not real.

How to reduce violent crime in Chicago? Elect non-corrupt government officials and hold City Bosses accountable (CPD, CFD, Board of Ed, et al.) to measurable results. If they cannot do their jobs, then they are out. So are there any non-corrupt government officials???

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service