Chicago Gun Ban Challenged by Supreme Court...

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: 483

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on June 30, 2010 at 7:38am
I actually have a question for you. Why do you seem to be so afraid of guns? In terms of physical trauma, I'm far more terrified of being stabbed than being shot.


mattbikes1 said:
Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.

Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on June 30, 2010 at 7:39am
Well the 2nd ammendment gives us the right to own guns, it does not limit what kind of guns...
Hand guns and long guns are not the same thing, and I think the HANDGUN ban is a stupid wast. Even if I myself like the shotgun for home use, if you've ever heard that "KERCHUNK" from pumping a round into the chamber, it puts a lot of fear into a person.
Now why do I want (or maybe even own) a handgun, because I BELIEVE that the law to LIMIT the kinds of gun I own, can (and will) be used to strip me of my right to own an effective weapon such as limiting the sizes to something smaller than a .22 caliber. If I am going to own a weapon for my protection, I want it to have stopping power.

We can only pass so many laws to make society safer, at some point we all have to be responsable and work to educate people so that smart choices are made.

There is more than one answer to this situation. Would it be great if NO ONE owned a gun, yeah but that is not reality. Would it be great if NO ONE drove a car and I had the road to myself, yeah but again not reality. Is making handguns legal in this city going to stop crime....see my line above about education.
Permalink Reply by igz on June 30, 2010 at 7:47am
my obtuse comparison was in line with what you were suggesting. and yes, i do recognize the difference. but a protective gun in the home IS a bit of insurance AND assurance...one that a policy on paper, nor the police can satisfy.

what we are talking about here...is that honest people were not able to protect themselves. from intruders or attackers, and even more substantially so...as to why this amendment was put instated in the first place...from the government.

this city is plagued with crime, crime often commited with the illegal use of handguns (which we have already covered that its an ineffective ban, and ultimately harms the security of non criminals trying to protect themselves from criminals).



mattbikes1 said:
Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.

Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 8:30am
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.

I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.

mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.

Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 9:39am
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.

notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.
mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 10:31am
Heather,

Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus.

heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 10:46am
Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.

My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different.

But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns.

PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc.

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 11:03am
I edited my response because I realized that "I'm better than that" was a snotty and inappropriate thing to say.

Adriana said:
Oh no no no heather...no bueno...no bueno indeed. No major social issue is going to be resolved on the chainlink or anywhere else for that matter, all is open for debate. Who is going to protect us from ourselves, the government?...who is going to protect us from the government or foreign attack? Ok, so we are not about to go "red dawn" here, but it's the principle. No one is better than anyone...lest you be judged as well.
Permalink Reply by heather s on June 30, 2010 at 11:13am
Haha, I spent 13 years in Catholic school, and sometimes the cruel and unfair judgement just pours out of me. I try to keep it under wraps. But no, I am 27 and did not participate in a tween ride.

Adriana said:
I know honey, I understand. I just got the 'bible beater, you are going to hell vibe on that' as far as the being better and casting judgment comment. I grew up being made to feel guilty and I don't look kindly on it as an adult. I understand it happens. Btw, are you heather form the tween ride?

heather stratton said:
I edited my response because I realized that "I'm better than that" was a snotty and inappropriate thing to say.

Adriana said:
Oh no no no heather...no bueno...no bueno indeed. No major social issue is going to be resolved on the chainlink or anywhere else for that matter, all is open for debate. Who is going to protect us from ourselves, the government?...who is going to protect us from the government or foreign attack? Ok, so we are not about to go "red dawn" here, but it's the principle. No one is better than anyone...lest you be judged as well.
Permalink Reply by Craig S. on June 30, 2010 at 11:39am
How is it reasonable that you expect me or anyone else to justify actions to you? Would you accept, "Because I want them." as a reasonable explanation? I kind of doubt it considering your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps you have things in your abode and beliefs that you should justify to me?

I don't really find my reply defensive at all, sorry that you do.

Excellent post by Jami by the way.

It's an incendiary issue to be sure and one certainly not to be solved here. I think it's a shame that there are firearms, period. But the sad reality is they do exist in vast numbers and it is a constitutional right to own them, no matter how people cling to the "vagueness" of the Constitution, and while it's legal to own them, I'm going to own as many as I can, maybe. No one will know unless they invade my home.

Rather than hide behind a cocoon of ignorance and an air of superiority, use Jami as an example and cure the ignorance if you've never handled firearms before. If you do have an aversion to firearms, that's your prerogative and I sure as hell will not judge you for it but at the same time, to demand that no one own firearms based upon a personal belief, as some people would have it, is no different than censorship. How do you feel about being censored?

Working on a way to conceal carry a Barritt .50 and still ride a bike comfortably....

Cocktails ahoy!

mattbikes1 said:
It is a reasonable set of questions and judging by how defensive you are about answering I will assume that you have no answer other than the fact that you are guaranteed the right via the 2nd Amendment. If you are going to participate in a discussion, I think it is fair that you discuss. Am I being unreasonable?

Craig S. said:
I can appreciate your curiosity but respectfully, why should I or anyone else for that matter justify to you or anyone else anything that we might want to bring into our homes?

mattbikes1 said:
I am curious by some of the statements made so far. Does the anticipation of a home invasion justify the cost of a gun, gun license, gun training, ammunition, gun locker or barrel lock, and especially your gun being stolen when you are not at home, etc. Do guns ever solve problems? Do guns really make you safer? What are the odds that your home will be invaded when you are ready and waiting with your loaded firearm with which you are trained to use with anything but non-threatening targets? The argument that you need a gun in your home to be safe seems ridiculous to me. Please, all of you gun loving people, enlighten me. Who among us has been in a real life situation that entailed you sitting peacefully at home and you were suddenly invaded and had you had a gun handy, you would and could have effectively defended yourself. Just curious?
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on June 30, 2010 at 11:48am
I've been reluctant to weigh in on this, but obviously not completely unwilling, so here goes. As others have pointed out, the City of Chicago handgun ban was a bad ordinance, and failed to accomplish its legislative objective. It failed to reduce the number of handguns among the criminal population in Chicago and criminalized the behavior of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wished to exercise a constitutionally granted right. I do think law-abiding citizens who wish to own guns should be able to do so.

As far as statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics), studies which focus on gun violence show that there are countries with higher rates of gun ownership than the U.S. with lower incidence of murder and suicide (Switzerland & Finland) and vice versa. There have been studies conducted which indicate U.S. cities which have adopted concealed or open carry laws have resulted in lower incidence of violent crime, some of which have been subsequently discredited. There are also countries with very limited legal access to guns which have substantially higher murder and suicide rates (Columbia, Estonia, Russia, Brazil). Hell, the Bahamas have a higher murder rate (though not substantially) than the U.S.

I think if you could wave a magic wand in the United States and make all the guns disappear, you'd witness a spike in murder rates by knife and Louisville Slugger. Most academic studies that look at means of reducing murder rates look at underlying causes for the violent behavior as opposed to focussing on the modality of the violence. Somewhat chilling is the fact that U.S. murder rates peaked during the Great Depression (not this one, the other one). It should also be noted that the War on Drugs has been very good (and by "good," I mean bad) for gun violence.

Statistics also suggest that keeping a firearm in your home exposes you to a much greater risk of death or injury and that your chances of protecting yourself from a home invader with a gun are actually pretty low. But you never know.

That having been said, shooting guns is really fun (I've been shooting for 15+ years), and I don't think the only people who have guns should be the bad guys.

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 11:55am
What the fuck? What is it with people completely ignoring what's said in responses to their posts lately?

How about you respond to what I actually wrote instead of restating your feelings about the issue? I never attacked your stance on gun ownership. (Before you go assuming my stance on gun rights, keep in mind that you, or anyone else, hasn't a clue on my stance.) I was just clarifying that at no point was it stated that Miami muggers moving on to new prey was positive. It was stated as a FACT, not a 'that's good' or 'that's bad' opinion.

Your feelings are irrelevant to that shift in choice of victim the same way me stating that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago doesn't explicitly elicit anyone's opinion. It's merely a fact.

And no, your post doesn't still stand because "I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone." had no place of being stated because it was never said that it was a win for anyone.

Funny that I'm getting pissed about reading comprehension in a thread such as this.



heather stratton said:
Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.
My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different. But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns. PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:

I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service