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: 504

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on June 30, 2010 at 5:13pm
I'm going with toMAYto/toMAHto on it because I think you understand my point and this is pretty much the same as far as that goes but thanks for the info as I did not know that before.

Michael Perz said:
The Constitution acknowledges that those rights already exist and only serves to protect those rights by strictly limiting how the government may act against them. The granting of rights is the realm of kings and dictators, not constitutional republics. I realize that many would see this as a toMAYto/toMAHto distinction, but I maintain that it is a crucial one.

notoriousDUG said:
Then where does the whole right to bear arms thing come from?
Michael Perz said:
Ahem.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.


As you were.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on June 30, 2010 at 5:16pm
heather stratton said:

Actually, I don't. I have no doubt that you're a responsible person. But I just don't think it's appropriate for regular folks to own guns. I don't really give a shit about the second amendment-- which, if I were a Constitutional scholar (and I'm not), I would interpret as referring to state militias and not to random folks. I think it's unacceptable for civilians to own guns.

That does NOT mean that I think that people who own guns are unethical or psychotic or any other stereotype that might be ascribed. It's just what I believe.

followed by:

heather stratton said:
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.

You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.

So the people owning the gun aren't necessarily unethical, yet the people owning the gun are unethical for owning the gun? Tank be confused, please help him out.
Permalink Reply by mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:28pm
At least you addressed the point I was making. Thank you sir. I will concede that when an unknown factor of self protection exists there is a crime deterrent. This is what I am trying to flush out.

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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:45pm
I do not fear the use of guns by trained gun users. The issue is that there may soon be a law on the books that allows anyone that can secure a gun license, legally, to own a gun and have it their home.

I have no problem with this right. The point I am trying to make and the point that is being avoided from an answer to my question is this: If you own a gun legally and you are a responsible gun owner, is it not assumed that when you are not using your gun or not at home you would, as a responsible gun owner, keep your gun in a safe, use a barrel lock, or at least keep your gun unloaded? If you are concerned about a home invasion and you own a gun, what is to stop a home invader from breaking into your home, when you are not at home, from stealing your loaded, accessible, and registered gun from you if you do otherwise? That just makes more guns available to criminals and criminal activity. If you are a gun owner and you are concerned about a home invasion, what is the likelihood that you will be ready and waiting for a home invasion where you will brandish your gun to detour, prevent, or retard said invasion? Lastly, if you had to use you gun to take another person's life, can you really anticipate or appreciate the mental distress of dealing with having taken another's life? This is the meat of what I am getting at and so far no person has even come close to addressing these concerns.

Again, I am only curious to what replies might come from the pro-gun side of this discussion.

Michael Perz said:
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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 7:58pm
Mental insurance maybe. I can only imagine the psychosis that may set in when a person sits at home with a gun in hand imagining that they are safe from crime because they have the great equalizer, the gun. The gun is and always has been the tool of the weak. Why not have a knife or a bat handy for the all too common home invasion. Or, better yet, get an attack dog. Even better insurance than a gun. In fact, why not just move to the suburbs to up your quality of insurance.

I digress, can anyone involved in this discussion even afford a gun as an insurance policy? Seems to me that renter's/homeowner's insurance is far more cost effective.

Then again, it would be cool to be Charles Bronson for a day. I just don't think that real life is quite as cool a the movies.

iggi said:
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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:04pm
Now you are talking conceal and carry. I will be the first to agree that the psychological factor works wonders when the criminals don't know who is packing and who isn't. However, even though I brought this issue up in the start of this post most people seemed to think that this is an impossible situation for Chicago. So I don't disagree with your thoughts, but I am supposing that the new law will be a gun ownership law subject to the gun staying in the owner's home.

Not to mention, your argument proves correlation but without statistical data it would be foolish to assume causation.

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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:05pm
Tourists have always been a target in Miami. That is fact.

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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:14pm
If you were to say, and I think you pretty much did, that you want to own a gun because it makes you feel less helpless, more powerful, bad-ass, or even because you like the way they work, then yes I would not question you. Those are honest answers. However, you come across a some kind of ignorant asshole that seems to be enamored by gun culture when you respond, "I don't need no reason and I don't have to justify my behavior to others" even though by participating in an online forum you are admitting that you are a willing participant in society to some extent. I am concerned about the ethics of this matter and to me ethics is about how we act when we have to live with and around other people. You have a responsibility to be a responsible and accountable person if you are going to live in society. So fucking grow up!

Craig S. said:
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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:19pm
Thank you for taking the time to weigh in sir. Insightful and thoughtful.

Kevin Conway said:
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 mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:22pm
Or, don't look like a tourist when traveling anywhere?

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
"The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting."

How is that a logical extension? And no, it was never suggested that you arrive armed if you go to Miami.

And an FYI, in the future, if you're responding to a different comment than the more recent one in a thread, ie. matt's instead of doug's, you can delete any that are not relevant to your response before posting. It helps with not confusing people as to what you're responding to.

heather stratton said:
@Tank-Ridin' Ryan, here is the statement to which I was responding:

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. 
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 have no doubt in my mind that notoriousDoug doesn't want anyone to get shot, tourist or local. I thought that was a given. It's obviously not a win for anyone. What we disagree about is whether guns make for a safer society.

The logical extension of his statement is that anyone traveling to Miami should come armed, because the muggers are waiting. So if I want to go to Miami, now I have to carry a gun with me?! Because I am 'sure to be unarmed,' just like any foreign tourist.

I would NEVER, EVER travel to a city where it was suggested that I arrived armed. That is not how I prefer to live. I don't judge other people for their choices.

I have been the victim of violent crime. My friends have been the victims of violent crimes. I am not going to allow those experiences to change who I am. My feelings are relevant, and I don't know why you would say otherwise. I accept the relevance of everyone else's beliefs, and only expect the same respect.
Permalink Reply by mattbikes1 on June 30, 2010 at 8:35pm
This is the one we are talking about:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

It clearly reads as the right of people to maintain a militia have the right to bear arms. So start a militia. Not to mention that handguns other than black powder muskets did not exist. I would wholeheartedly agree with Heather that this is an old and at many times outmoded document. I will defer to Kant in saying the importance and relevance is in the spirit and not the word.

notoriousDUG said:
Did I say I questioned them? No.

Are you missing my point or just choosing to ignore it?

You stated that it is legal per our constitution to own a gun but are morally opposed to it; good for you don't buy a gun and encourage others not to but for you to openly not care about the right granted in the constitution is not only ignorant but shortsighted. When the right to do something you care about comes up and the way to protect or obtain that right becomes an issue of constitutional rights you have, at that point, lost the right to turn to the constitution for the protection of those rights. It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it.

I wish I had a good example but I'm pretty pro-freedom so there is nothing I can say I don't agree with which the constitution protects but I think you understand my point.

According to a radio piece I heard this morning there are a lot of similarities in the argument against the gun ban and the argument against a ban on abortions. Now, I agree abortion should be legal but a lot of people don't, in fact a lot of them are the same people who love guns, and if they are not able to use the constitution to protect that right why is it OK for it to be used to protect the right of a woman to choose other then your ethical opinions? If you want your rights protected you have to allow those who disagree with you to protect their rights as well.

That all said the constitution was meant to be a fluid document and if you, and others, disagree with the second amendment rather then try to take away a right granted by that document and lobby to change that document in a manner that removes that right but still allows the protection of the other rights that you feel need to be protected?

heather stratton said:
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.

You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.
Permalink Reply by Shawn C. on July 1, 2010 at 1:15am
Matt - the constitution is not static and the SCOTUS has already evaluated and interpreted the 2nd amendment to include citizens/civilians as militia, and handguns as arms. This fact remains: The Chicago hand gun ban is invalidated!

mattbikes1 said:
This is the one we are talking about:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

It clearly reads as the right of people to maintain a militia have the right to bear arms. So start a militia. Not to mention that handguns other than black powder muskets did not exist. I would wholeheartedly agree with Heather that this is an old and at many times outmoded document. I will defer to Kant in saying the importance and relevance is in the spirit and not the word.

notoriousDUG said:
Did I say I questioned them? No.

Are you missing my point or just choosing to ignore it?

You stated that it is legal per our constitution to own a gun but are morally opposed to it; good for you don't buy a gun and encourage others not to but for you to openly not care about the right granted in the constitution is not only ignorant but shortsighted. When the right to do something you care about comes up and the way to protect or obtain that right becomes an issue of constitutional rights you have, at that point, lost the right to turn to the constitution for the protection of those rights. It is hypocritical to care about and adhere to one part of a document because it stands for what you believe and ignore another because you disagree with it.

I wish I had a good example but I'm pretty pro-freedom so there is nothing I can say I don't agree with which the constitution protects but I think you understand my point.

According to a radio piece I heard this morning there are a lot of similarities in the argument against the gun ban and the argument against a ban on abortions. Now, I agree abortion should be legal but a lot of people don't, in fact a lot of them are the same people who love guns, and if they are not able to use the constitution to protect that right why is it OK for it to be used to protect the right of a woman to choose other then your ethical opinions? If you want your rights protected you have to allow those who disagree with you to protect their rights as well.

That all said the constitution was meant to be a fluid document and if you, and others, disagree with the second amendment rather then try to take away a right granted by that document and lobby to change that document in a manner that removes that right but still allows the protection of the other rights that you feel need to be protected?

heather stratton said:
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.

You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service