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

Ahem.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.




As you were.
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.
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.
I know of one 200+ year old rule that allows you to state your opinion with impunity. Or is this just quaint and you follow it because you agree with it?

Regardless of your opinion of the Constitution and it's antiquity, regardless of your opinion and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is legal for citizens, you and I, to possess handguns.

I honestly have to question Howard's assessment, and I'm the FNG.

heather stratton said:
Thanks and ouch! I read every reply on this thread. what was my lapse of deep reading? I just don't agree with many/most Americans regarding the 2nd Amendment. I find it dated and misinterpreted. And I don't find it necessary to follow 200-year-old rules.
H3N3 said:
Dunno. Heather is one of the smartest and most clear-headed people I know.
Might be better to just examine what it was about her momentary lapse of deep-reading that set you off. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
I think I just need to stop reading the forum.

H3N3 said:
Someone needs a break from Chainlink.
Here's what I've learned:
When you delete your profile, all of the threads you create and all of your posts go away.
When you come back, your groups and your friends remain attached to your e-mail address so if you use the same one they will all reconnect to you regardless of your new handle. I can't remember but I think your events (the ones you've created) stay but become orphaned . . . I don't recall whether they become reattached to your when you return. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
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.
Abortion stops a beating heart.
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.
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.
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.

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?
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?
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.

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.

RSS

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service